SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

The one that always irks me is those who "Stayed for the Kids."

Hippo, that's terribly unfair, I think. Love may be a big reason why some folks are willing to offer R, but having kids, especially young ones, can't be so easily dismissed as a reason to offer R. Had my exww cheated before she got pregnant with our son, who was barely 4yo on d-day, I'd have divorced her and never looked back. My son was a great reason to give my marriage a second chance and I do not regret that at all. Six years later, however, he was old enough. Still, after we separated, once a week I'd drop him off at school knowing his mom would pick him up and I wouldn't see him for a few days. I'd cry all the way home. That went on for months.

(Have to admit it, though. After a while I grew to appreciate all of that free time. Shh... don't tell anyone).

You know, ya don't just divorce your spouse, you half divorce the kids, too.

However! At some point, and it's all individual, staying for the kids is not healthy. That was my experience growing up, from 10yo until the day I could run off to the military. Miserable parents, however we'll intentioned, are miserable.

Unfair? One of the first things I learned (especially in human relations) is "Life is UNfair"

So (please pardon me) consideration of fairness doesn't add much weight to path to take when a relationship gets in the rough.

I really think one should consider more than "just stay for the kids" - first in my mind is their safety and teaching them the way of the world. (aka "Parenting") Albeit a LOT harder if you are not present.

For anyone who chooses to stay for the kids, Hat's off to you! You have certainly bit into a long lasting merde panini.

Seems to me - when parent chooses to stay for the kids - kids do better in growing up. (just my opinion from lots of reading on places like this one)

Also, I am sure my thinking is biased - I grew up without a "dad" or "father" -

Then again - decide to stay or go is a MONUMENTAL decision - often made with a big dose of hope in the weighing process.

Kids were a huge factor for me staying. But I came from a family that never got divorced. My wife not so much. I wasn’t going to allow her bad decisions hurt my children. To this day I don’t think they know. My oldest was just in college. Next one was middle of high school. Not a great time for mom and dad to call it quits. Everybody stays for thier own reasons and their own ethics. Some make compromises between the two to justify the decision.

At what point does the window of opportunity close? In other words, how long does it take to reasonably assess a WS as a candidate for R?

Borrowing a 12 step phrase, for me, 1 day was too many and 10 years was not enough.

I understand giving folks some kind of template as to a time frame but it certainly is not a "one size fits all" prescription. Case in point, there is a well known thread on this site where the BS is described by thecWS as not doing well after 6 years. Another well known poster said that 5 years was actually the breaking point rather than a milestone. It turned out to be 10 years of varying degrees of misery for me before it ended.

As to assessing the viability of reconciling with a WS, the answer is, it depends on the character, or lack thereof, of tbe WS and the fortitude and willingness of the BS to try.

It does take time IF you are willing, but, in the end, "blood will out".

On staying for the kids.

My parents separated when I was 12. I remember being relieved when our mother told us she was moving out and taking us with her. Then one morning we woke up in the new place and I heard my dad's voice in the living room. They were getting back together. I remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I didn't want to go back. I was happier with them separated.

That didn't last long, tho. My father was a serial cheater, and my mother began seeing the bass player in my dad's band. She finally left for good and my parents ended up divorced. She ended up marrying the bass player, and all seemed well. I was happier. Was I a good, well balanced kid with no issues? Nope. Not by a longshot, but I was happier. Then our stepfather, the bass player, died in a motorcycle accident a couple of years later. Boy, was that a rough time. Mom was never the same.

There's lots more to that story, but in the interest of not dragging the thread too far off topic I'll end it there. Suffice it to say I'm a possibly rare example of a kid who was, or at least felt, better off with my parents divorcing. I did have an interesting childhood and adolescence tho. I grew up around a lot of music. My parents and stepfather were all in bands and practice was always held at our house. They'd throw a weekend party/festival every year in the spring. Huge backyard, and a makeshift stage. A hundred or so people would show up every year for the "Mahoning Valley Easter Festival." Music has always been a huge part of my life.

I think a big part of the "staying for the kids" reason is not just to keep both parents in the house, but also to protect the kids from whatever trash the WS decides to bring home. Some people admit to that, some keep it to themselves.

On the 2 year theory:
I think it’s vastly misunderstood. It’s a common statement that it takes a person two years to stabilize after major trauma. Not only infidelity – and how we say it takes two years for reconciliation to "work". When my dad passed away my mom was told repeatedly that the next two years would be hard, but after that she would be OK. Same with people that lose children – after two years there will be some light. Same with various other trauma – it takes two years to recover from an unexpected job-loss, feel safe in a burgled home, divorce...
Divorce is an interesting "trauma" that semi-confirms the 2 year rule. Respected (but getting dated) research queried people after divorce. When asked at the 12 months mark a significant part (about half if I recall correctly) regretted divorcing, and/or stated that the differences could have been resolved within a marriage. Same group asked at the 18 month-mark were content with their decision and had no regrets...

I think when we experience the trauma of our marriage basically being false it takes us time before we can really evaluate if it’s really what we want. If our WS has spent the last 18-24 months on reconciliation, then AT THE 2 YEAR MARK we are at a place where a more rational evaluation on what they have done, what we have done, where we are as a couple and what we want.
Some reach that mark faster – some never. Personally I didn’t reconcile but I felt the damage of the infidelity on me for six months where I questioned the reason to draw breath, followed by 3-5 months of feeling flatlined emotionally, followed by a 6-8 month period of wild abandonment (what I call now my "out in the desert months") before I reached a place emotionally where I was content.

On the staying for the kids...

I think kids are a great reason for wanting to reconcile and for placing a lot of work on trying to reconcile.
I think remaining married for the kids is a terrible idea, and in nearly all cases simply an excuse for inaction.
If your spouse is willing to do EVERYTHING to reconcile or you think the spouse is capable of doing EVERYTHING required to reconcile then the kids are a great reason to offer the chance of reconciliation. Do this and chances are that at the 2-year mark you can evaluate if it’s really what you want.
But what if there is no remorse, no accountability, no real change... Neither from the WS nor from you. If there is no remorse and no forgiveness, no trust or no wish to rebuild trust... No marriage per se except the dry, cold business side of it...

I think that if you cant raise your kids in an environment where there is mutual respect between the parents then they are better off being raised in separate households with separate parents – and possibly in the future step-parents in the form of new spouses where mutual respect is shown.

We don’t get many posters here that share with us that they staid for the kids with no real intention of reconciling, but now x years later when junior moved out they are filing.

Like Oldwounds, I think in terms of 2-5 years to recover. R is more and different work and probably lasts longer than recovery does.

And yet, every BS that comes here in JFO is told "Takes 2-5 years to RECONCILE". Sigh. This has been my point all along. I’m fully onboard that it takes "2-5 years to RECOVER". And recovery is VASTLY different than reconciliation.

How bout we start saying THAT eh?

** Member to Member **

And yet, every BS that comes here in JFO is told "Takes And yet, every BS that comes here in JFO is told "Takes 2-5 years to RECONCILE"....

That's simply not true. I am only one of several members who use the '2-5 years to recover' phrase in all forums on SI.

It's difficult to search SI, but it is possible. I won't share my search argument, but I ran 2 searches, one based on 'reco', and one based on 'reconcile'. I got many more 'recover' returns than 'reconciles', many of the 'reconcile' returns contained '2-5 years to recover' with 'reconcile' in another phrase. I don't know if Google returned skewed results, but I very rarely use Google search, and I am rarely signed in to Google, so I might have gotten non-skewed results.

You've been around long enough to know there's no timeline for healing that everyone will follow, and you know that R is not going to work for every couple. If you see '2-5 years to R' in JFO, you're free to point out explicitly the 'R' should be 'recover' or 'heal', and you're free to point out explicitly it's just a rule of thumb, not a guarantee.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 4:56 PM, Thursday, October 2nd]