Stay vs. Go Showdown 2009

July 18, 2009 12:47 AM

Stay vs. Go Showdown 2009 Also starring: 2 kids!!!!!!! Is it better to stay in a bad marriage so that the kids can be with both parents, or to divorce and hope for the best?

THRILL TO:
Absolutely no other women!!!
Years and years of cobra vs. mongoose!
Feeling like a fraud! Occassional awful sex!

SEE the TERROR!
Some other a-hole raising your boys!
Time and money both in the toilet -- FOREVER!
Failing your own inner child's highest ideal!
Eyes that plead "where were you???"

WITNESS the AGONY!
Unwinnable scenarios til you DIE!
Losing your soul! AND your balls!
Moving into your own basement! By choice!

(for a friend of course)

posted by rahnefan to human relations (38 comments total)

Kids will be fine if they have parents that love them. Can you communicate that more effectively together or apart?
posted by setanor at 12:50 AM on July 18 [3 favorites]

Staying together "for the kids" = fucked up kids

The kids know, and sense, and feel, and are irreversibly affected, by what's going on. If you're in a dysfunctional relationship and are able to get out, your best bet is to do so and work on making yourself healthy and happy. One happy and healthy parent is way better for kids than two sick ones.
posted by amyms at 1:09 AM on July 18 [5 favorites]

staying together for the kids is the oldest cliche. staying in a bad marriage will be much more damaging than divorcing. of course, if you don't mind the kids having a twisted idea of what a normal marriage is, keep fighting! keep thinking they don't know what's going on! it'll be fine. and heck, everybody knows that only rarely having bad sex for years doesn't affect your personality.
posted by rhizome at 1:10 AM on July 18

It's all anecote, of course, but...

I don't know anyone who wishes their (divorced) parents had stayed together.

But I know many people who wish that their parents had broken up and divorced instead of staying together and creating stress through their entire childhoods. Many divorced later, after the kids were grown and moved out. Those kids always seem to say "About time!"
posted by rokusan at 1:12 AM on July 18 [2 favorites]

Think the kids don't realize there's something weird about one parent moving into the basement?

Either you raise kids in an environment where people are at least striving towards happiness, or you raise them in an environment where people are bitter, frustrated, and constantly angry. I think it should be clear which is a better environment for children.
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:15 AM on July 18 [3 favorites]

Divorce. As a child, I always wished my parents would get divorced instead of having them seemingly hate to be around each other, or say cruel contemptuous things to each other. My husband's parents divorced when he was a child, and he was THRILLED.

When I was very young, like four years old, I remember my mom contemplated divorce and I begged her not to, but of course I had no idea what I was talking about and very little understanding of the situation. All I knew at the time was that I had learned from society that it wasn't good if your parents wanted to get divorced. I always remembered saying that to her, though, and I regretted it very much later on (even though she should have known better to listen to me). Even if the kids don't want the parents to get divorced, that isn't a good reason to stay together; they likely don't have the proper perspective to understand how things could be better, or why the difficulties of adjusting to separate parents is still better than what they would have had to put up with otherwise.
posted by Nattie at 1:24 AM on July 18

Is there the possibility that your friend will get custody and not his wife? Or that he can move somewhere close by (even the same town) and make the effort to stay active and involved in his children's lives? If the answer is yes, divorce is a no-brainer.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:34 AM on July 18

Do what your kids want.
posted by brenton at 3:25 AM on July 18

First of all, why would someone else be raising his kids? Would he just disappear? Why wouldn't he have joint custody and go to their sports events and school plays and take them out to dinner and read bedtime stories and play catch in the front yard? Divorce doesn't mean you stop being The Dad, unless you actually stop being the dad.

Secondly, staying together for the kids is the biggest cop-out of all time. Why make them miserable, too? They already know there's a problem and if it's put to them that mom and dad won't be fighting anymore if they divorce, and that the kids will still be loved (will always be loved), they'll probably be relieved. I know I would have been and I wouldn't have spent years wondering why my mother didn't love me enough to leave a shitty, shitty marriage.
posted by cooker girl at 3:42 AM on July 18

Whatever the decision, keep talking to the kids. I'm not sorry my parents divorced -- like rokusan says, they should have done it a lot sooner -- but by far the most stressful part of the process was being lied to by one/both parents or, worse, being kept totally in the dark. Like most kids, I wasn't dumb and knew damn well that serious shit was going down, but having parents who woudn't be straight with me about it was by far the scariest part of my parents' breakup.
posted by stuck on an island at 3:43 AM on July 18

Happy parents help to make happy kids.

Sometimes happy parents are only possible if they separate.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:14 AM on July 18 [5 favorites]

Is it better to stay in a bad marriage so that the kids can be with both parents, or to divorce and hope for the best?

If you've explored the route of therapy (or even if you've dismissed it out of hand), you divorce and MAKE IT THE BEST. Fuck all that "hope for" bullshit. Your question (somewhat) implies the parent asking the question is male. It also SCREAMS that this person has already given up or feels powerless. Why would he want to feel that way the rest of his life, and why would he think that was a great model of adult relationships for his boys? Because I can assure you both will happen.
posted by ersatzkat at 4:33 AM on July 18 [4 favorites]

New advice: given the current ecomomy, how will money play into a divorce?
posted by Postroad at 5:20 AM on July 18

There have been two recent studies about the long-term effects of divorce on children. This article gives a good overview of the two studies. In short, they both came to different conclusions, but even the study that was more "pro-divorce" found that "25% of children from divorce do have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems (in contrast to only 10% of children from intact families)" even though only 20%-25% sustain problems after two years.

Also: TAGS! For searching! Not for adding additional information not found in your question!
posted by Houstonian at 5:24 AM on July 18

Divorce now before icky marriage makes one or both of you do stupid things.

If the marriage is as you describe then you will be a better parent after the weight of it is off your shoulders and probably so will your spouse.
posted by ian1977 at 5:30 AM on July 18

My parents divorced - it was the best thing that happened to them, and us kids.

Just one reminder: don't get too excited with your new life to completely forget the kids needs. Otherwise, it'll be fine.
posted by smoke at 5:34 AM on July 18 [1 favorite]

In this situation, I would say it's best to get the divorce and try to work out a custody agreement everyone can be happy with.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 6:46 AM on July 18

I am very skeptical of studies measuring the effects of divorce on children. It's too easy to bias the results, and even assuming no bias it's practically impossible to develop solid conclusions from the data. There are just too many factors at work. Anecdotal, but the best kids that I have known have come from the parents who have cared the most, regardless of divorce.

So, get the divorce, avoid any further emotional conflict with ex-spouse, and then use all that saved emotional energy toward being the #1 advocate for your children.

Honestly, after my divorce, my son and I became orders of magnitude closer. I was finally able to be myself and allow myself to parent the way that was most natural for me.
posted by TheOtherSide at 7:34 AM on July 18 [1 favorite]

Divorce is a good thing in your situation. Having grown up with dysfunctional parents all I can say is I wish they'd parted sooner, probably before they had children would have been best. Suggest that you go for the joint custody agreement. Several of my children's friends spent certain days with each parent and they seemed to be cool with that, as long as they stayed in the same school/neighborhood with their friends. The more time you spend with your children young the less time you will worry over them old.
posted by ptm at 7:51 AM on July 18

but even the study that was more "pro-divorce" found that "25% of children from divorce do have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems (in contrast to only 10% of children from intact families)"

But 100% of the children of divorce are children whose parents don't love each other enough or get along well enough or agree on basic life choices enough to stay married, and a large percentage are children whose parents don't love each other enough to even be civil. (That's leaving out all the children of divorce where the divorce is because one of the parents is an active alcoholic, drug abuser, physical abuser of spouse or children, or criminal.)

I would suggest that the percentage of children in "intact families" whose parents don't love each other enough to be civil is much, much smaller, and that that--rather than divorce--is the problem.

And there's no way to control for that, even in a retrospective longitudinal study. There are some other problems with the methodology of the studies you cite, including the definition of "intact family" and the lack of control for decline in real income and standard of living (since many children of divorce become poorer, financially, especially when non-custodial parents default on financial obligations, and we know that poverty is in itself a risk factor for all the negative outcomes identified).

My anecdata is that the most messed-up people I know are children of bad marriages whose parents stayed together "for the children."

And here's the thing: your happiness and your wife's happiness count, too. So what you've got is two people whose happiness would DEFINITELY improve from a divorce, and two people who maybe, according to some very problematic studies, might have a chance of happiness reduced by 15%, but whom lots of people's experience suggests might have a much better chance of happiness.

The utilitarian equation seems clear to me.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:10 AM on July 18 [1 favorite]

Divorce.

I was old enough to remember the terrible fights my parents had (which sometimes progressed to throwing things at each other.) My younger siblings don't - my parents got divorced before they'd entered grade school. I'm envious of that, since the unhappy marriage and divorce were both hardest on me in the long term because I was old enough to understand what was going on and to remember life pre-divorce. Life wasn't easy after the divorce: my parents still had to cooperate to make decisions about raising us, to organize the shared parenting schedule, etc. They still fought about that. But the fights were far less frequent, and far easier to hide from us kids. Both parents were always careful not to tear down the other parent in front of us. We've all got very good relationships with both of them.

So no, divorce is no panacea, but you can still be a good and loving parent: unless you yourself choose not to spend time with your kids, not to structure things so that they have a life with both of their parents, divorce does not mean "[Seeing] some other a-hole raising your boys!" or your kids' eyes "[pleading] "where were you???""

25% of children from divorce do have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems (in contrast to only 10% of children from intact families)
...And what does "intact family" mean here? Taking a look at the Hetherington book referenced in Houstonian's article, "intact family" simply means "non-divorced family" - many intact families are ones where the parents love each other and get along. Search through the book, though, and you'll note that in many cases Hetherington talks about "divorced" and "high-conflict intact/non-divorced" or "acrimoniously married" families. The outcomes for kids and parents from these families are very, very similar. Saying the problems come from divorce itself rather than parental strife rather misses the more subtle points the actual study mentions. As well, her study suggests that a significant percentage of kids and parents grow up "enhanced" (happier, more stable, etc.) due to divorce.

In other words, the statement quoted above is rather glib and ignores both the positive effects of divorce (which are there!) and the many similarities between divorced families and unhappy intact families. It's not a good summary of the study and its conclusions; please don't take it as Scientific Proof that divorce will destroy your kids and that staying in a bad marriage is better.
posted by ubersturm at 8:36 AM on July 18

Nthing "divorce." The important thing is: don't involve your kids in the decision. At all. You can ask them how you feel about it, but make clear that nothing they say or do has anything to do with the result. This is between Mommy and Daddy.

Otherwise they'll feel horribly guilty (and eventually resentful).

As a stepdad, I can guarantee you that my stepson is happier than he would have been if his parents had stayed married.

Frankly, everyone gets divorced these days. It's not a big deal. All my stepson's friends have two families.

I think when kids have two families, they learn more about how to have a family. They get to see how two different families work. And I think they usually choose the better mode of living for themselves.
posted by musofire at 8:50 AM on July 18 [1 favorite]

Here's a study that may interest you:
Staying Together 'For The Sake Of The Kids' Doesn't Necessarily Help Them
posted by rancidchickn at 8:54 AM on July 18

I guess I should clarify my previous comment. I'm not necessarily in favor of divorce or staying together for the children. I was pointing out 2 studies that several divorced parents had pointed me to recently. In those cases, the parents were worried that they'd done the right thing for themselves, but perhaps the wrong thing for their children... and cited the studies to help me understand their worries.

The question, while cute, did not give enough information for anyone to promise a sure-fire, absolutely, no-questions-about-it answer. So, I was just pointing to the poster what had been pointed to me. Frankly, I think a good argument against the study would be: 20% are harmed, but only 20% of that 20% sustain harm past 2 years... so that's a pretty small number. On the other hand, it's not zero.

I do think it warrants serious contemplation, though. Nobody knows the poster's situation, spouse, and children well enough to know how this will turn out for his kids. I've known people who grew up with divorced parents and were glad they were divorced. I've known other people who grew up with divorced parents and it definitely caused them problems. Really, only the poster can make a valid decision about how it's likely to work out for his children. The best we can do is provide data and anecdotes to help inform his decision.
posted by Houstonian at 9:24 AM on July 18

Child of divorced parents here.

Parents staying together 'for the children' is the stupidest, most selfish act you can ever inflict on a child. Kids are incredibly sensitive to problems in their environment, and will pick up on the fact that mum and dad (or mum and mum, whatever) don't love each other anymore.

Miserable parents = miserable kids.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:02 AM on July 18

Here's a great article debunking a lot of "common knowledge" about staying together for kids:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200907/time-s-misleading-cover-story-marriage
posted by Invoke at 10:40 AM on July 18

Interesting...no one seems to be assuming that maybe he's a selfish prick who expects far too much and needs a less childish perspective of what life is like as you get older. I'm thinking none of the responders so far are ministers in the bible belt!
posted by rahnefan at 11:56 AM on July 18

Interesting...no one seems to be assuming that maybe he's a selfish prick who expects far too much and needs a less childish perspective of what life is like as you get older.

In that case, they should DEFINITELY divorce.
posted by kookaburra at 1:42 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]

People talk about the choice between staying in an unhappy marriage or getting a divorce. There can be a third option - working with your spouse to create a satisfactory marriage that allows you to stay together as a partnership, without resentment.

If both partners are willing to consider "staying together for the kids" then they should seriously commit themselves to making the marriage work better.To do this, almost always requires couples counseling. (Good counseling - quality and "fit" - matter here) One result of the counseling would be better communication. If the better communication should lead to a decision that divorce is the better option then at least you and your spouse would have much better communication/problem solving skills for dealing with the issues of divorce and co-parenting.
posted by metahawk at 1:50 PM on July 18

I agree, from experience, that "staying together for the kids" is a miserable cliché that probably causes a lot more pain than it prevents.

On the flip side, a lot of people who realize that staying together for the kids doesn't really work out take it to the other end of the extreme. What I've sometimes seen is that some parents, once they internalize that separating is actually better for the kids, seem to forget that their behaviour after the separation matters a hell of a lot, too. That means being very careful how you handle dating again, and how up front you are with the kids about it. that means continuing to cooperate with your partner to ensure your kids are loved as much as possible even in a less stable home environment. That means not using your kids as therapy, or ammunition, or blackmail. That means making sure your kids know that the split had nothing to do with them, but it also means making sure that you don't over-spoil your kids to compensate for the split.

The question was a bit ridiculous. It had next to no background information on length of marriage, circumstance of relationship getting together, previous experience of both parties, age of children, current state of children vs. parent relationship - there's really not much to go on. But the follow-up was so accusatory and vitriolic (and sounds like the OP is on the mom's side, or something) that I'm tempted to tell both parties to get out, now, before the toxic resentment boils over (if it hasn't already) and does far more damage to the kids than a divorse ever could.
posted by Phire at 7:01 AM on July 20

OP, beware the AskMeFi bias that weighs the responses towards divorcing (you're more likely to hear from adult children of obviously crappy marriages). That is to say that there are many among us whose parents may not have had the happiest of marriages, heck, even miserable marriages, but they still were able to remain relatively civil, and keep the family together. In fact, there are many among us who don't or didn't even realize that our parents' marriages were crap, but instead they chose to adhere to a mantra of "sacrifice and happiness" instead of the "ephemera of romance and obligation" as stated in this recent article.

Now, that doesn't mean marriages shouldn't be worked on...
posted by teg4rvn at 8:20 AM on July 22

totally botched my last comment...

should read "sacrifice and obligation" not "sacrifice and happiness"
posted by teg4rvn at 8:28 AM on July 22

Thanks for reminding me about the bias, teg4rvn. I thought of it, only too late -- I was hoping for a real showdown between what I see as a pretty clear dichotomy, seen repeatedly on AskMefi. The post was too silly to hope for that though. But I do wish I could mark as best answer this post from a different thread: http://ask.metafilter.com/127722/Relationship-advice-needed#1825801
in addition to the ones I'll select here.

Basically on one hand you have the idea that if you what you chose is causing you misery, then you should choose to get out. The opposing idea is that if what you have is causing you misery, it's only because you allow it to, and true contentment must come from within.

Introduce kids to the question and a bias emerges in the number of responses, but there is still a yin and yang. If what you chose is harmful to your kids, then you should get out before it gives them a negative example of human relations, versus seeking patience and satisfaction that doesn't depend on anyone else, so that your kids don't develop an unrealistic ideal about human relationships.
posted by rahnefan at 10:46 AM on July 22

So you're saying that you deliberately misled us and this was all an exercise in farting around and wankery.

Not okay. Flagged with extreme prejudice.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:16 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]

Actually I didn't say that at all. But I didn't not say it either. :)
posted by rahnefan at 2:25 PM on July 22

I wish you'd say which it was. If your post was just to see "a real showdown," then I think that's pretty crappy frankly. You sent me a MeFi mail with additional questions, and I spent some time writing a response, hoping I was helping someone. If it was just for your amusement, I'd like to know.
posted by Houstonian at 3:23 PM on July 22

Can't a person query the hive mind and try to inject a little fun into it as well? Never seen anyone laugh at a funeral? Saying I was hoping for a more balanced bunch of responses is not the same as saying we aren't talking about real people. Questions like this are posted here about every other day, and we all wind up at this crossroads at one time or another. Flag me rotten but I regret nothing.
posted by rahnefan at 4:03 PM on July 22

Well I mean -- hell, I don't see how you can look at the question and not think I'm being at least partly silly. But it's not without personal interest and I appreciate everyone's input. Don't be hurt, I'd regret that, sure.
posted by rahnefan at 4:18 PM on July 22