Conference quark::mennotes

His wife is, in my opinion, misstating the case.  It's entirely possible for
shared custody to work out "happy", and single custody "unhappy".  It all
depends on the temperments, motivations and selflessness of the parents.

When my ex and I divorced ten years ago, we had a 2-year-old son.  To the
best of our abilities, we had shared equally in all aspects of nurturing
and child care, and it seemed natural to want to continue to have each of us
involved with our son to the maximum extent possible.  Yes, it was unusual
at the time, but we ended up with shared physical and joint legal custody.

I will be the first to say that it was not a piece of cake.  The major element
that made it work as well as it has was that, as best we could, we cooperated
in our son's upbringing, sharing major expenses and consulting on issues
such as schools, activities, etc.  This in itself was not easy - many times
it was tempting to become antagonistic, but we managed to work through the
issues.

We've been doing this for ten years now, with the current schedule 3 weeks
at a time.  We both live in the same city and have comparable incomes, so
there aren't great inequities in resources.  Our son has had to learn to
cope with two somewhat different sets of "house rules", but he knows that
both his parents love him and are involved in his life.  On the downside,
at times he doesn't seem to really "settle in" and may feel a lack of
stability.

There have been times when I felt it would be better for him to live with
just one parent (not necessarily his mother), but overall I think that I 
would make the same choice.

This probably is of no use to your friend, other than to suggest that if
he wants to succeed he needs to redefine the argument.

					Steve

    
    I'm not sure you will find many, if any articles that support staying 
    together when one of the spouses is unhappy in the marriage.
    My feeling is that if the problems can't be worked out to both parties
    satisfaction it's better to end the marriage providing an honest
    attempt was made to resolve differences!
    Steve in re:1 is right about staying involved with the children
    after the seperation/divorce.  The catch is that all parties have
    to be mature enough to overcome the obstacles to a sharing relationship
    with the children.  too often this is impossible because of all the
    acrimony in divorce/seperation.
    
                                      Bill  

gee I've never seen a seperation of parents work out
for the kids....

Always works in one or both (sometimes) of the parents
favors..

I now realize I completely misunderstood the base note.  Argh.  What the
friend wants is to "stay married for the kids".  I agree that that is not
a good idea.  Yet it leads me to comment on the pervasive attitude that
if one partner decides they're "not happy", then the automatic response is
divorce rather than working to strengthen the marriage.  Too many people
think that marriage is a guarantee of eternal bliss without any obligation.

				Steve

I haven't got a direct answer to the base noter, although I have seen several
pointers in this conference to literature about the negative effects of divorce
on children.  Everybody here seems to agree that

	in the best circumstances, divorce hurts children

	the best circumstances are all too rare in the real world


I'll also support Steve in .4, that being unhappy should not immediately and
necessarily lead to divorce.

Any time we make a long term commitment, we should expect a day will come when
we feel unhappy with it.  But happiness is not a simple yes/no or black/white
kind of thing.  We owe it to ourselves, our partner in the commitment, and
everyone else affected, like the children, to think long and hard about a few
simple questions:

	How unhappy am I really?  Where does it fall on the scale from 
	everyday dissatisfaction to life-destroying misery?

	How could I change the situation and keep my commitment?  Can my
	partner and I work together on this?  Could this be a treatable 
	depression?  Am I really unhappy with something else?

	Realistically, what will life be like for everyone if I break my
	commitment?  How will I feel about myself?  Will my life really be
	better?  And what about my partner and the children?  Will the 
	real cause(s) of my unhappiness remain with me?


I would not presume to answer these questions for anyone else.

I feel sad that our culture has generally encouraged simplistic answers to
questions like these.

I am happy to see that this seems to be changing.

    
    Never have I seen divorce benefit children unless there was some 
    drug, alcohol, or violence involved.  Even then, all too often, 
    if the mother is the one with the problem she _still_ gets the 
    kids, and the father who has been the only source of stability and
    protection in the child's life is evicted from the family.

    The "it will be better for the kids" is a cop-out to soothe the guilty
    conscience of the person who, in spite of all the information about
    decline in standard of living after divorce, still thinks that divorce
    is the only answer to all their unhappiness.  The animosity does not 
    stop with divorce.  With a few exceptions, it usually gets worse.   

    fred();

Re: .5

>I feel sad that our culture has generally encouraged simplistic answers to
>questions like these.
>
>I am happy to see that this seems to be changing.

It is changing, but is getting worse, not better.   More and more people are
considering divorce as a "first resort" when they're unhappy, and this
is accepted by society.  They don't want to take responsibility for their
own feelings and actions or do any work to maintain the relationship.
The children suffer the most.

				Steve

>	My friend is trying to find documents/articles to support his 
>	statement that it's better for a child to be brought up by both
>	parents and negative effects of broken family on children.

I don't have any specific documents/articles for your friend.

I would suggest two methods as a starting point.  One is to do some work
at a decent library - many have access to on-line literature search services, 
and I'm sure could help him find literature on the subject.
    
Another is to use Digital's AltaVista system on the WorldWideWeb
( http:/altavista.digital.com/ ).  I did
a couple of quick searches - one on 'divorce near shared and custody' and
another on 'staying together near divorce and children', and found a
total of about 40 - 50 references.  I didn't look at the articles to
see if they really related to the subject well, but its a place to
start.  Of course what we find depends mainly
on what we look for, so your friend might want to develop his own Web search 
stategy.

Hope this helps.

Chuck

    This may be obvious, but 'working on the marriage' is useless unless
    both parties are willing to take long, hard, honest looks at
    themselves. Too often, one spouse may want to work on problems, but the
    other wants to maintain the status quo. They say they want the relationship
    to work, but they want to keep it on their terms. 
    
    Why is your friend concerning himself with finding documentation to
    'prove' that his wife should stay in a situation where she's apparently
    not happy? Is he trying to keep her in jail? Maybe he should ask her
    what the issues are that are making her unhappy, and listen with an
    open heart. You catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
    If she feels that he genuinely does want the marriage to work for
    everyone involved, she may reconsider. But trying to force her to stay
    'for the kids' will probably just make her want to leave even more.
    
    As others said, a situation in which one spouse is unhappy will create
    tension and a bad atmosphere in the home, which will hurt the kids. It
    will also give them a BAD EXAMPLE of how a relationship should be.

    re .9
    
>    As others said, a situation in which one spouse is unhappy will create
>    tension and a bad atmosphere in the home, which will hurt the kids. It
>    will also give them a BAD EXAMPLE of how a relationship should be.

    There is _nothing_ that will create tension between parents like divorce
    will.  And just what does divorce teach the kids about relationships?

    fred();

    re .10
    
    So are you saying that someone should stay in a relationship where they
    are miserable? If they've given it an honest effort?
    
    Ideally, both spouses should work hard to solve problems and make the
    marriage work. It's important to the kids to see loyalty and commitment
    to solving problems. But the best efforts sometimes don't work--the two
    spouses may just want different things from the relationship, and a
    compromise can't be reached. And then it becomes an issue of being true 
    to one's self, which is also an important example to set for kids.
    It's a lot better to part with at least some mutual respect for each
    other, than to stay, and allow resentment and hostility to eat away
    at both people's lives until it's an out-and-out war. Do you really
    believe that kids aren't aware of what goes on? 
    
    My daughter has a friend whose parents stayed together 'for the kids'.
    This girl hates being at home, she's angry at the parents for martyring
    themselves for her sake, and she's disgusted by the loveless sham of
    her parent's marriage. If anything, they have set an example of what
    she doesn't want. 

    
    
    re .11
    
    Being true to oneself is not sufficient reason to end a marriage where
    there are children involved. 
    
    John
    

    
    reply .11

    >So are you saying that someone should stay in a relationship where they
    >are miserable? If they've given it an honest effort?

    If I had a nickel for every woman who told me that what they wanted
    most in a relationship  was "commitment"...  Just what is this 
    "commitment" anyway? And who gets to decide what an "honest effort" is?

    Apparently you are looking at the situation from a woman's point of
    view of having little or nothing to loose but the sorry S.O.B. that
    is "obviously" the cause of every crappy thing in the world.  How
    much would your tune be different if it meant leaving your children
    behind?  If he was the one who could evict you from your children
    and your home on a whim, what would you think of this "commitment"
    then?

    I do not expect _anyone_ to stay in a violent and abusive relationship.
    I personally have advised more than one woman to "Get the hell out 
    _NOW_"!  Although I have seen many guys stay because they knew that
    leaving meant abandoning the children.  I've seen many a guy stay in a
    rotten marriage because leaving meant abandoning children he loved to
    a, to put it politely, less than ideal parent.  Only to be given the
    heave-ho anyway after the last drop of blood has been extracted.  As
    the saying  goes "No greater love hath any man than to give his life
    for a friend".   Now much less for a parent for his/her children.  

>    Do you really
>    believe that kids aren't aware of what goes on? 

    I've rarely seen a kid that will tell you it's much better after
    divorce.  In fact the animosity usually increases on an order of 
    magnitude.  Yes there are the kids where dad was a abusive drug addict.
    I can understand that, but those cases are in the minority. 

    What I have seen is kid after kid who dreams at night of their parents
    growing up and working out their problems so that the child can have 
    _both_ parents he/she loves close to him/her.  What I have seen is
    kids with minds twisted with hate from the brainwashing of on parent
    against the other.  What I have seen is kids living in poverty because
    the living standard of _both_ parents falls like a rock.  What I have
    seen are children with _no_ parent because mommy has to go to work
    now.  Children with little or no understanding of what "commitment"
    means themselves.  Let alone the ability to pass it on to _their_
    children.

    fred();

    
    
    Fred
    
    The last paragraph of your reply .13 summarizes my feelings exactly.
    
    We (I) haved lived through, and sufferd the consequences of, the 'ME
    FIRST! generation with disastrous results. People are too willing to
    destroy a family for no other reason other than temptation whispers in
    their ear once too often.
    
    Sorry for those that disagree...I won't change my mind. I believe that
    the family is the only thing holding this country together anymore. If
    we make it too easy for people to become morally unaccounable for their
    actions through things like NO-FAULT divorce, then we are on the road o
    certain ruin.
    
    Parents need to grow up, put their differences aside, and move forward
    for the good of the family. Parents goals are secondary to the needs of
    their children. 
    
    Adults can find enough to occupy themselves, and continue to be civil
    toward each other, until the children are grown.  Your kids aren't
    always happy, even with their own best friends. They don't expect their
    parents to be goo-goo eyed every day, they don't expect their parents
    to not have disagreements. They do expect civility and respect,
    however. 
    
    Screw this "Be true to thine own self" crap. If you had the enery and
    libido to have kids, then you own the responsibility to put your
    selfish feelings aside for their benefit.
    
    I'm not particulary speaking to Mattson, or the base noter. I'm just
    spouting off.
    
    John

                                                         
    WARNING! The following contains material which may be inflammatory!
    
    It's absolutely true that the aftermath of divorce s@cks. But I still
    say that this guy in .1 should first try to hear his wife out and
    maybe take a look at his own issues before he tries to control her.
    Is he completely innocent of the fact that she wants to leave? Just the
    fact that he's resorting to control tactics such as 'providing
    documentation' gives me a pretty good idea why she might want out.
    
    Does he REALLY WANT to make the marriage work? That usually means both
    people have to change some things. Or does he want to 'win'?
    
    I was operating from the assumption that these are adults that are
    married. They are both individuals. They both have rights. Either one
    CAN leave. No one can force the other to stay. Get used to it, it's the
    way it is. All that the man in .1 can do is his best, to make sure he's
    done his part to be a good mate, and then let go of the outcome.
    I'm sure she has faults, too. Hopefully his willingness to look at
    himself will encourage her to do the same.
    
    Control tactics !!!NEVER!!! work. We women do NOT LIKE THEM!!!!
    You can preach right and wrong until you're blue in the face, but
    remember that change begins with the self.
    
    
    
    

Little more about .0 (my friend)

I don't know the whole story, as we all know, there are always two sides
to the story.

He is telling me that he loves his kids and his wife. She wants out because
of the difficulties that they had during their earlier (first 6 years) time
of their marriage. She does not want to go to marriage counselor. She wants
him to move out for couple of month which he is refusing, since he did that
last year already for a month.

So he wants to use these documents to convince his wife that divorce is not
good for anyone, specially Children. His wife states that Children are the
most important thing in her life.

P.S. Thank you for all the pointers. I have enough documents for him.
    

I agree that there are marriages so bad that divorce is better for the children.
As Fred says, these usually involve drugs, alcohol and/or abuse.  I also agree
that there are marriages where sticking together is better for the children and
the adults.

.15>    maybe take a look at his own issues before he tries to control her.
>    Is he completely innocent of the fact that she wants to leave? Just the
>    fact that he's resorting to control tactics such as 'providing
>    documentation' gives me a pretty good idea why she might want out.

See .16, admittedly not available to you when you wrote .15.

I would not be willing to condemn somebody just for asking for information.

Nor would I assume that somebody is not doing X because I see them doing Y.

>    Does he REALLY WANT to make the marriage work? That usually means both
>    people have to change some things. Or does he want to 'win'?

From the information in .0, I would have no idea.  From the information in .16,
I'd guess, with the usual reservations, that he wants the marriage to work.

>    Control tactics !!!NEVER!!! work. We women do NOT LIKE THEM!!!!

Interesting.  Actually, we men don't like them either.

You might reread .15 in the light of your own wisdom.

    Reading .16 gave me a better idea of the situation. I'm sure it's
    frustrating if one person wants it to work (In this case the husband)
    but the wife doesn't. It's a tough one. Could any kind of a compromise
    be reached? Could he TEMPORARILY stay somewhere else with the condition
    that she see a marriage counselor with him? Can she possibly be talked
    into giving it one more try?
    
    I didn't mean to imply that he's at fault. I just don't think the
    approach he's taking will work. I doubt that that will encourage her to
    stay. If she insists on ending it, regardless, all he can do is try to
    accept things, get on with his life, and let the kids know that he
    loves them and is still their father. 
    
    

If she's so unhappy, she can move out.  If he leaves, he
jeopardizes his position regarding custody, and risks being
accused of abandonment.

He can't change her - only she can change her mind - but he can
safeguard his own interests in the children, and stay put.

    
    RE:16.
    
    To all men reading this note, listen carefully!
    
    If your SO says move out for awhile and after that time I will
    make up my mind about staying together, *DON'T DO IT*
    It is one of the biggest line of BS that women give to men.
    
    If you move out and after the agreed upon time is up and she
    says *I've decided I don't want to stay together*  You won't 
    have a chance to get custody of your children. It's hard 
    enough for men to get custody under the best circumstances.
    
    Come up with an arrangement that keeps men in the house,
    live in a seperate room etc.  You can co-exist in the same 
    house and not risk losing your children.
    
    Bill  who's been through it!

    
    re .18

>    I didn't mean to imply that he's at fault. I just don't think the
>    approach he's taking will work. I doubt that that will encourage her to
>    stay. If she insists on ending it, regardless, all he can do is try to
>    accept things, get on with his life, and let the kids know that he
>    loves them and is still their father. 

    Again I ask how much different your tune would be if it were _you_
    who was being forcibly separated from your children, then forced
    to fork over a substantial amount of your continued income to finance
    the situation.  Such B.S. was supposed to have gone out with The
    Emancipation Proclamation.

    fred();
    

    From today's Pueblo Chieftain, Pueblo, Co.
    I don't have time to type in the full article, but no less a flaming
    liberal as Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado is quoted:

    "Common since and most studies tell us that fathers play a critically 
    important role in the lives of their children an that father's absence
    makes the lives of children harder". 

    However, most of the article was about establishing paternity and 
    what a great job is being done to collect child support.  The quote
    is somewhat a nonsequitur in the article, which gave an overall since
    that men were the cause of most divorce and that men were absent from
    their children because they just don't care.

    fred();

    All you can do is try counseling.  It could be that your spouse is
    generally unhappy with some small items, it might be things that you or
    she have grown into.  
    
    Divorce is hard on children, but so were the flying plates and words
    and parental units choosing not to come home at night on my oldest. 
    Yeah, right.  I was supposed to stay with him, even while he was
    screwing the upstairs roommate, generally creating messes and refusing
    to clean them or cook, when I was the financial support for the family
    unit, while saying I was offering no support to the household.  "Umm
    honey, could you at least sort the laundry and change the sheets in the
    bed when you and she do the horizontal bop in my bed?  I don't like
    sleeping in someone elses bodily fluids."  He still doesn't understand
    why I left the night he twisted my arm for not being susie homaker
    while going to school and holding down a job to feed him, our daughter
    and the sorry-a$$ girlfriend he had upstairs.  
    
    In our case, there was no point in counseling.  I had had enough.  I
    did see to it that he did take his daughter on weekends, or at least
    for a couple of hours on Sundays, even when he didn't pay support. 
    (that 10K would come in awfully handy for Lolita now.  She has a few
    months of college to go.)  
    
    meg
    
    

    
    re .23

    Don't get me wrong.  He probably got what he deserved, but to continue
    to try to make my point here...

    If the laws had been reversed, even after all that, he could have kept
    the kid and forced you to support him with "child support" while he 
    continued to boink the upstairs roommate.  And if he was also
    neglectful and abusive to the kid...too bad.  So you would then
    have had the choice of 1) put up with it, 2) abandon the child and pay
    child support, 3)abandon the child and become a "deadbeat".  

    fred();

Hi,
   I think there are a few references out ther. Fathering seems to be the hot
topic these days.

   "Divorce Busters" is a book I vaguely remember seeing around. There is a new
book - the author was on teh TV teh other night. He seemed to make sense. Also
somebody pointed me to an article in this months Better Homes and Gardens on
the importance of Fathering.

   Now I think I could end up agreeing with either argument in .0. People seem
to be pointing out the main issues. I would like to hear her side. I do think
it's pretty unfair to avoid counseling. I think if one spouse wants to try
counseling then the other should try it.

   Children need both parents. I am painfully aware of that these days. If one
of the parents is abusive to themselves the other parent or the children then
they are being deprived of parenting as much as if that parent was not there.

   A suggestion is for the friend in .0 to try counseling by himself. I've seen
that be productive in other cases.

Peter.