This is the mantra I hear from all divorced parents, no exception. But I saw their children before and after, and I'm not sure if it's true. In one case, I witnessed the very moment of separation, it was heartbreaking, the kid was crying all night. She's never experienced that kind of trauma before.
I'm very, very far from judging these parents, everyone has the right to be happy. But using the well-being of children as an argument is often just a way of rationalizing one's emotional choice. And I'd venture to say a more honest approach could be more beneficial for everyone involved.
Let me share my personal anecdote, which I know is not data, but it shapes my world view.
A close friend’s parents are still together, but he was raised hearing from his mom that she was staying in the marriage because of him. It was a regular occurrence. Only when he hit college and started talking about it more did he find out his mom said the same to each of his older sisters. The sisters were possibly able to brush it off more because they were closer. Also, the dad was the target of a lot of anger in the house, and my friend would draw comparisons from his sisters and mom, i.e. “you’re just like dad” was always a criticism to him.
So elsewhere in this thread, someone used the caveat “as long as it’s not toxic”, and I think that’s actually a nice generalization. My friend’s childhood experience was pretty toxic.
Yes, I fully agree with the "as long as it's not toxic" approach. This involves not telling the kid you're staying in marriage (i.e. feeling bad) because of them, even if you do.
No, I specifically mean the parents getting divorced and using the argument it will be better for kids this way, because otherwise they would have to endure hearing them arguing etc., so the net result would be negative. I haven't meet even one divorced parent who wouldn't use this argument.
No, he meant that women create a narrative that makes them look good in divorces that is often the opposite of the facts.
So women will say (and subconsciously think and believe) that breaking up the family is good for the children, when nobody else would agree, so that her decision looks good.
Hence the 50% divorce rate with 70% of those initiated by women - they set aside the effects on children.
Obviously the primary victims of war are the combatants, mostly men, but that doesn't fit her narrative, so she makes up nonsense and no doubt believes it, even though she has legal training.
I didn't really mean women, men share that sentiment too, if it was their decision to split (although I admit I met very few of them, most were women, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much).
And obviously, there are many cases where this argumentation is valid and every sane person would do the same, e.g. when the partner is getting violent, abuses alcohol, drugs, and so on. I feel even verbal aggression is enough: if your partner is calling you names in front of the kids, what kind of role models are you for them? In this case, if this is a regular thing rather than a single case, I feel it's better to part ways - and it will be better for kids.
I'm very, very far from judging these parents, everyone has the right to be happy. But using the well-being of children as an argument is often just a way of rationalizing one's emotional choice. And I'd venture to say a more honest approach could be more beneficial for everyone involved.