One of the nicest things my parents did after their divorce was to spend Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner together as a family, not just one year but several. At the time, I didn't realize how unusual this was, nor did I have any understanding of how difficult this must have been for each of my parents. In retrospect, we were a strange group after a few years: my dad with his serious girlfriend in tow; my mom with her new husband; my sisters with their boyfriends (who eventually became their husbands); my brother and I usually stag, although some years we had a serious mate at our side. My new step-brother and step-sister came too. There were some awkward moments, but it worked well enough to make us feel like we were still a family, divorce and all.
Don't ask me why it mattered so much for me to see my divorced parents together and getting along, as I don't have a logical answer. I was 17 when my parents split, so these "post-divorce holidays" took place for me when I was well past childhood, between the ages of 20 and 32. Nonetheless, even though I had my own life, I wanted our family traditions to continue. My siblings felt this way too, particularly the younger ones who were still living at home and already missing out on the family life I had had. All of us being together at least once a year somehow made it feel like the holiday season, with peace on earth and goodwill to all men, even divorced ones.
My mother is now a 74-year-old grandmother with 14 grandchildren, and this year it is our turn to have her for Christmas. So as we were talking the other day about holiday plans, I thought I would ask her for some words of wisdom that I could share...something that would give deep insight about how she and my dad were able to get along for all those years after their divorce. With her counseling background and her various Masters Degrees, I was sure she'd have a lot to say on this subject.
This was what she said to me: "Well, I sucked it up -- we both sucked it up -- because we needed to get along for you kids."
I waited for more. "Uh, Mom, is that it?"
After a little more prodding, I got some elaboration: "You can't let yourself choose anger over the welfare of your children. Dad wasn't a bad guy, so there was no reason he shouldn't be with you kids. We had to make it work. It was hard at times, but we did it and I'm glad we did."
As I write this now, I am still amused by my own ridiculousness in thinking there was some profound insight out there that would be the key to successful co-parenting. Wishful thinking, when there are only matter-of-fact truths we all know already. Anyone who has been divorced will tell you, the only way to make a custody share work is to suck it up.
Clearly, holidays together are not possible for many divorced parents, for whatever reason -- whether the animosity is just too great, or the pain too fresh, or the distance or logistics too daunting. The main point of this story is not the shared holiday dinner, but the choice one must make. You either stay angry, or choose the welfare of your children.
We're approaching the New Year in six short weeks, a clean slate. Let it be your resolution to truly put the welfare of your kids first -- and commit to this for the holidays as well. Easier said than done. But the most damage you can do to your children is to continue fighting as divorced parents. You must choose. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not suggesting you become a doormat or allow your legal rights to be compromised. This is not about actions so much as it is about attitude and how you choose to view your spouse and your divorce. It's about choosing to be civil. It's about respecting your ex-spouse's relationship with the children. It's about letting go of grievances from the past. Do you walk around most of the time feeling like you have been victimized? If you do, that's probably a sign that you are still choosing your anger over the welfare of your kids.
How will you know when you're making progress? It's simple. It's like the Gift of the Magi. When you're sucking it up until it hurts, that's when you will know your sacrifice is making a difference for your kids. I personally believe this is the truest expression of love any divorced parent can give to their children. Seeing their parents get along will mean a lot more to your kids than any present you can buy them.
So I hope you'll take the challenge this holiday season and continue it into the New Year. If you want to make t-shirts, have them read: Sucking it Up for the Kids. Someday when you're 74, or maybe even sooner, you will have this same conversation with your grown kids. They'll finally understand the depth of what you did for them. And as it is for my mother and father, it will all be ancient history for you and seem like a lifetime ago. There won't be any more pain or struggle and you'll be so glad you made the right choice.
Follow Alison Patton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LemonadeDivorce
This is the part that so many people tenaciously clinging to their anger and bitterness fail to remember.
Perhaps this day of peace and charity will be remembered as a lovely thing for them.
As someone who also works with post-divorce conflicts, my other impression is you've created goodwill that will serve the family well in your future co-parenting. Sometimes one person being loving and generous in a manner such as this can begin a pattern of peace and cooperation. Not always, but sometimes. I'm not saying you accept forever the financial situation in the name of creating goodwill--this isn't about your legal and financial decisions. I think you get the point--it cost you nothing tangible to show kindness and be a family for Thanksgiving (well, probably cost you some emotional stress). But if you're able to do this as a divorced parent, there are intangible benefits that come later and benefit the children just as much as the shared holiday.
But when it comes to pretending that it's perfectly okay if your former partner had you evicted, separated from your kids and forced to pay a large chunk of your income for many years to ensure that she wasn't inconvenienced, then that's very good for the kids, right?
Can somebody explain the difference?
Then why is it acceptable to kick one of the kids' parents out of the house, forever ending their time with two actively involved full-time parents? Do you have the impression that this does not make the kids uncomfortable?
How can you defend divorce, which would seem to be a far more serious source of discomfort to children, while attacking incivility after divorce?
The only way it would make sense would be if unfriendly parents after divorce were more harmful to children than divorce itself. Do you have any evidence to support that? Or is it possible that someday, children will appreciate -- the full sense of the word -- what their mothers have done for them by seeking divorce? I would imagine that you hope they don't.
No matter what a persons situation is, during marriage or divorce, as parents, we have to be the "adults" and role models to our children. If you and your spouse/ex are angry or bitter for any reason, keep your feud seperate and out of eye and earshot of children. (There are exceptions to this rule, in cases of abuse)
In stark terms, don't make children into the rope in relationship tug-of-war.
We teach our kids about the importance of kindness, compassion, respect, and cooperation... teach by example. Put differences aside for the sake of the kids. Then, when they grow up, they can really be well balanced, emotionally healthy people if they've been allowed to love their parents equally. Forging through uncomfortable and even surreal situations to protect our kids so they can escape emotionally brutal side effects of divorce is noble. And the proof is in the pudding. My kids are turning out to be grounded, balanced young adults. I credit a lot of it to the fact that I made an effort to rise above what should have been a very bitter break-up. Bottom line,I forced myself to "get over it" so my kids could move forward in life with as little baggage as possible. Never easy. Not fair. But pays off.
Hating your ex can eat you alive and hurt everyone.
Especially kids.
Alison Paton, you are my hero.
Alison, the same Census Bureau study reports that of 7.4 million parents receiving child support, 6.5 million (90 percent) are women.This figure is similar to others from the Office of Child Support EnforcemenÂt as well as figures from other sources. It's difficult to see how a significant percentage of cases could involve equal custody. Of course, there could be child support payments in equal custody cases, but I think as a general rule that is not the case.
I'm happy to look over support for the contention that 50-50 custody is common, assuming it exists. In its absence, I think it's reasonable to conclude that women are essentiallÂy always primary custodians of children after divorce, despite your personal impressions.
Here's the link to the Census report, in the event that anybody is open-minded enough to look at it: http://wwwÂ.census.goÂv/prod/200Â9pubs/p60-Â237.pdf
A number of states have had to remove their parental time offsets that negate child support obligations and now have special formulations for joint physical custody to ensure that there is at least some child support obligation in all divorces. For example in Michigan, there is a minimum required $25 child support obligation, someone is going to pay some child support, no matter what. This is usually the man.
The law is rigged this way so that the state of Michigan can continue to collect federal child support enforcement dollars.
Your mention of the federal child support enforcement dollars raises an important point. Namely, that states have strong financial incentives to collect as much child support as possible so they can get this money. If you go to a legislator and propose that equal custody actually become the rule, rather than the rare exception, you get nowhere because they know that if parents get equal custody, that means child support is either less likely or ruled out, and that means less federal child support enforcement money. I don't have the number in front of me, but as I recall the feds pay out about $4 billion every year to states for collecting child support.
This means that the average state gets $80 million a year and large states get very much more, into the hundreds of millions. That means there is no way a legislator can promote equal custody, because it would cost too much. And that is how our national policies strip children of an actively involved parent, turning full-time fathers into occasional visitors. Is that a good thing?
On the other hand my best friend and her ex have sucked it up for the kids and their post-divorce relationship and co-parenting is textbook perfect even though their marriage was a disaster. Their kids have two loving parents to depend on. Not only does it work out for the kids, but it also alleviates the feeling that you have to be THE go-to parent no matter what. The shared responsibility is a bonus you get from "sucking it up" so it's not all sacrifice. It's great when it happens.
I have to believe that one good, strong, solid parent can raise healthy children. All the articles on co-parenting and sucking it up for the children are difficult to read and embrace by those of us who have been abandoned to go it alone.
I attended all of their events alone and it made me sad a lot of the time, but stronger as time goes on. My two grandsons only have me as a grandparent and I try to be a good single grandparent. This past week was Grandparents' Luncheon at their school. I was one of the only grandparents sitting alone with my grandchildren, but after having done it with my kids, I know it's okay. It took a long time and many times as a parent I would feel very overwhelmed and burdened.
But the proof is in the pudding. My kids turned out great and though I made mistakes, they recognize what I did and how hard it was and they are wonderful kids. You can do this. And your children will recognize what you have done for them. Good luck to you.
Post divorce is a different story. Saying to "suck it up for the kids" at this point is not forcing someone to stay under one roof. It's saying: please put the welfare of your kids first as much as you can in your custody situation, don't play out your anger in front of them, respect their other parent, be civil. That doesn't mean you have to like your ex. It doesn't mean you have to spend time with your ex. It just means: Think about your kids and understand that post-divorce conflict and anger expressed in front of them harms them. If you love your kids, shield them from this.
If one of the parents really was a jerk, that's more reason why sucking it up to stay in the marriage would have been a mistake. And if one of the parents didn't want the divorce--that's definitely a tough situation, but it's not the kids' fault. To this parent I would say: You may have a right to be angry and feel betrayed, but nonetheless suck it up for the kids when it involves them. Don't mess up your kids' lives to get back at your ex.
You don't have to play God to find this out. You just have to go to Google Scholar, type "reasons for divorce" into the search box and spend five minutes reading a few of the one-paragraph abstracts of the research papers published in refereed academic journals.
When you get past the many varieties of denial -- one of which is the "it's just too complex and mysterious to figure out" denial -- you find that the evidence strongly supports a picture in which divorced is a phenomenon overwhelmingly driven by women in the pursuit of their personal happiness to the profound and lasting detriment of children and former partners. If you disagree, I hope you'll feel free to take a look at the findings of the social scientists and point me to a consensus of evidence to the contrary.
Of course, whether or not I am divorced, married, single, widowed or anything else can have no bearing on the validity of the information I present, all of which is readily available from authoritative sources to anyone with an Internet connection and some curiosity.
I think where you lose me in this debate is the inference that all divorces lead to the guy getting horribly screwed. I just don't see that. Particularly these days. In California, 50/50 custody is really common. I don't see a lot of spousal support being ordered unless it's a long-term marriage. I have several cases where the high-earner wife pays child support to the husband. In California, the courts rarely allow one parent to move the child far away from his other parent in a shared custody situation. I believe you when you say you are "citing statistics," but not sure how recent your statistics and fact patterns are.
But I have to ask... what the devil is a "fact pattern"?
I'm interested to see if you have any support for your view that 50/50 custody is really common in California or anywhere else. As it is today, more than four out of five primary custodians are women, according to the latest estimate I found at the federal Office of Child Support enforcement. To put it in another context, women dominate primary custody to about the same extent men dominate spousal homicide. The ratios are similar.
I'm not sure what a fact pattern is, but the findings of who initiates divorce and why have been strongly consistent across many years of many studies by many researchers in many countries. I haven't anything about spousal support or relocating children far from the father.
You persist in emphasizing your personal limited experience over the findings of large numbers of academic researchers publishing in juried scholarly journals. You know, from an individual's perspective the earth appears flat. Sometimes we need to look beyond our social and professional circles to see what science has to say.
I rarely ever hear men shift blame when topics like this is discussed. If the topic is about fathers abusing children. You will see men up in arms calling for the beheading of the offender. (Some women too) But with the situation reversed you will actually see some women shift blame or make excuses. Like saying "men do it too" or she must have been stressed or mental or something. SMH
you know, BE the change.
EdCorey, I agree with what you said and neither men or women should shift blame or make excuses. It's the kids who pay the price if the gender wars continue.
I'm trying things a new way and even though I know I'm doing the right thing, at least for my own family, it's shocking to find out how much of an up-hill battle it is. I get sideways looks for NOT pretending like I'm in a battle of the wills with my ex, or looking at my kids as though they are the trophies that go to the best parent. Parenting is not a contest. It's a joint effort. Kids need mom and dad, but society almost seems to expect and want divorced parents to fight.
My guess it's going to take many years and many of us showing others a new example of how to do things differently before a change occurs.
My position is that the buck stops with the person who made a free non-coerced decision. That is to say, nearly three times as often, the woman.
Why shouldn't the buck stop with the woman who makes the decision to seek divorce?
Is the wish to feel appreciated, to have intimate communication and to feel close to the partner an irresistible natural force, so that if a person feels it is unfulfilled she has no choice but to have her partner evicted, strip the children of a full-time parent and demand a third or so of her former partner's income for the next 10 or 15 years?
This seems a trifle lopsided. On one hand is a person who feels her wishes for a deeply romantic relationship have been compromised. On the other is a person who has been evicted from his home, separated from his children and forced, on pain of prison, to pay her a third or so of his income for the next 10 or 15 years..
Let's add to the question of where the buck stops the question of whether the punishment fits the crime.
I think it would be interesting to Google the research on who instigates couples therapy and individual therapy more--men or women. I would guess it is women who more often seek counseling before throwing in the towel. I think it is also women who most often suggest couples' therapy. I don't agree with the idea that women jump out of marriage with little reflection. Actually what I hear a lot of the time is that the husband wouldn't agree to any personal or couples counseling to address marital problems...so the wife gave up.
But fundamentally, I don't think this is a gender issue in the first place. I'm not blaming men because woman are unhappy and leaving marriages, and I think it's equally silly to blame women for leaving. As a mediator, I work with both spouses at the same time. What I see consistently are heartbroken couples who both tried to avoid breaking up their children's family but one or both of them finally decided they couldn't make it work. It's just sad most of the time, not vicious and selfish. People make mistakes and marriage is hard. I wish all the gender blame would stop. If there's one thing I've learned in this business after many years, it's this: there are good moms and dads, good wives and husbands, and there are lousy ones--from both genders--and sometimes divorce happens regardless which category the spouses fall into.
Do you realize what you're saying? You want to feel heard and cared-for and the rest. That's clearly a legitimate and worthy goal to pursue. But at what cost to the other members of your family? Are you willing to walk out of the house right now, today, leaving your kids behind, knowing you're going to be an occasional visitor in their lives from now on, and pay your ex a third of your earnings for the next decade or so? Is it the torture that bad? No? But if your husband is the one paying the price, then it's acceptable, right?
Who's belittling whom?
No, you should leave at the first sign of unhappiness...after all the vows only said, "till death do us part" and "for better or for worse". I think you should give up on marriage whenever it is convenient for you...that is a much better 'example' to show your kids. Hey Kids...if you make a life-long commitment and it doesn't appear to be working out...just give up! Don't even try to make it work. Quit. It is much easier that way...oh, and by the way...do that with everything in life that gets hard...just quit. Right?
The kids can end up with two sets of step-siblings to have "issues" with, plus the delight of mommy and daddy having other kids with the new spouse.
She asked: who am I representing?
I said: ME
She asked: Why is he here?
I said: Because WE NEED YOU to understand this is the way we want it done for the benefit of our 2 sons! I've already been to one lawyer who in one hour TOLD me how I was going to take my husband for half of everything. I kept asking him how this doesn't automatically pit us against each other and cause anger and negative feelings which would ultimately trickle down to the boys. He WOULDN'T listen to what I wanted. She sat back and listened respectfully and when I was finished she said we were a rare couple and she'd be happy to take the case.
Divorce is NEVER easy for anyone involved ESPECIALLY the kids. No matter how hard we tried to remain civil and amicable we have still torn a family unit apart. That being said, my ex and I have, over the past 13 years spent holidays, school events, graduation celebrations together. I have attended the wakes and funerals of both my ex's parents to be there for my kids. His family doesn't get it, but he and I do. We wanted to make sure the damage we'd done to our kids by divorcing was as minimal, it's unfortunate that all couples can't put the needs of their kids first.
I applaud you both!!!