Staying together for kids, do you plan for future?

[Anonymous]

I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm staying together for the kids, but also for me.

The reality is, I want to see the kids every day, I want to see them every holiday, put them to bed at night and cuddle with them in the morning. Missing those moments is not something I'd choose to do. I don't want a "stepmother" I don't know raising my kids for part of the time (a total possibility if you divorce). I also like what a combined income affords us and consider that to be part of making my life content and comfortable.

Our kids see us all enjoying times together. We still laugh at each others jokes when they're funny, and enjoy a hug, cuddle or more when the mood strikes. We're friends and as long as there is peace, it is enough.

I don't know what will happen when the kids leave, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Now, if we were mortal enemies shouting at each other every day that would be a different story, and of course not good for the kids to see. But the idea that that a marriage has to be all or nothing just isn't true.

What if you find out he has a side piece and has a NSA arrangement behind your back? Many marriages like this the wife is blind sided.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and no. When I was in my late 40s, my wife told me that she was going to divorce me as soon as the youngest graduated from college (I would have been 65 then). Meanwhile, I was expected to live in the family home, pay for everything, and get zero sex. I began to plan for a future without a wife, and divorced her when I was 50.

Men: if your wife seems unreliable, get rid of her now. You have to make the most of your high-earning years if you want to retire, and the worst thing in the world is being robbed of retirement at age 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people say staying together is a bad idea where there is no animosity or yelling and just a drifting apart. I may consider splitting up once kids are out of the house just so we can each find joy for our second act. But I love providing an intact family for my kids. Even if we split, spouse and I will still be on good terms.

You must think your kids are unintelligent then. Kids are actually very smart and pick up on this lack of love. And it can effect how they behave in their own relationships down the line. I found that out the hard way, and have heard many many stories in a similar vein. Please ask any kid who grew up like this if they are glad their parents stayed together.

Kids are ridiculously poor judges of what is good for them. They don't have an ability to meaningfully compare two situations, because it's not a mommy and daddy with love vs. mommy and daddy without love. It's like this. It's either mommy and daddy without love, OR:

- shuffling between the houses of mommy and daddy, and these houses are probably smaller, grungier and further away
- possibly changing neighborhoods, schools, routines
- less money for travel and extracurriculars
- less money for college. College loans!
- potentially new partners, step siblings, less money, less attention, less everything
- constant bickering over who gets what holiday
- constant bickering over who you'll visit next and when
- hard end of life decisions when both elderly parents need care, and cannot help each other like they normally would. So now instead of dealing with one elderly parent you are dealing with two separate sets of problems. Have fun adding this to your plate.

Now mommy and daddy without love don't look so bad, do they.

By the way, the way you behave in your own relationship down the line is on you. You are in charge now, not mommy or daddy. No blame, no credit.

You have a ridiculous old-fashioned idea of what a divorce looks like. Sometimes it looks like as you describe. But many times it does not. If both parents always worked, or if one parent earns a lot, there is not that drastic of a financial difference. Here is an example of mine:
1. Kids did not change neighborhoods or schools (and if they are young enough, it does not matter. People move all of the time). One parent kept the house. The other parent bought a smaller “extra” house nearby. Nothing is smaller or grungier. They literally gained a second house.
2. The money for extracurriculars is the same. Same amount of travel.
3. There is not less money for college. The savings rate is exactly the same.
4. There is almost no change of remarriage and absolutely no chance of more children for either parent. In your 40s, people don’t really want to remarry and have more kids. There will be no “steps”—it is a non-issue. In the very unlikely event that happens, we will deal with it. But it is not a very likely outcome at all in many, many divorces.
5. There is no bickering over holidays. It is in an agreement.
6. There is no bickering over visits. It is in the agreement.
7. Elderly parents have separate health issues anyway. Being married is not that helpful. It is irrelevant. Plus, I don’t expect my kids to deal with it. I will get long term care insurance. Being divorced is not going to make me being old any worse no matter what happens.

In addition, I can be in the same room with my ex. I absolutely can’t be married to him. It was awful. But I can put my kids first and many do. Not that much changed for them. It’s not about marital status. It is about being a good parent.
Stop fear-mongering and continuing this ridiculous stigma of divorce and how horrible it is. Wasting your life in a terrible marriage is worse. I know—my parents did it—and it is pathetic. I was not going to end up like them. There is a way to have a “good divorce” which is far better than a terrible marriage.

[Anonymous]

1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and no, new bf/gf do not come with families. They come with a new bf/gf. No one needs to meet kids unless it is an ltr. That would be years away. I would have to be dating for years for a bf to meet my kids. My ex feels the same. No everyone is interested in blending their lives after a divorce. They just can't be married. You have a lot of assumptions about people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and no, new bf/gf do not come with families. They come with a new bf/gf. No one needs to meet kids unless it is an ltr. That would be years away. I would have to be dating for years for a bf to meet my kids. My ex feels the same. No everyone is interested in blending their lives after a divorce. They just can't be married. You have a lot of assumptions about people.

My assumptions are based on the rules, not the exceptions. If you can divorce with zero financial impact, you are the exception, not the rule. Same with not introducing new bf/gf's to your kids. Exception, not the rule. You act like you are the measuring stick for divorce. Kudos to you, but that's not the reality for the VAST majority of divorcing couples.

You sound like GP with the consciously uncoupling. It's ideal, but not the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of divorces at empty nest time.

Many are blind-sided because they didn't know their spouse was just hanging around waiting for their kids to leave and secretly planning their escape. It's quite tragic to do that to someone.

+1 Yes, I think it is really horrible to do that to someone. Planning an exit years in advance is pretty horrible. If you know you will leave, just end it and dont' delay the damage and steal years of another person's life. So wrong.

Agreed. It's horrible to just plan and wait like that without telling your spouse. It's very manipulative way to live over a relative long period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

You still don't get it. everything I was saving is literally going into a mortgage which is actually better than sitting in a savings account. No, I am not saving in general at the same rate because it was in savings, but the money was just sitting there. But I can make a profit off a house. I can't make a profit on .5 interest in a high-yield savings. I am saving the same for college, the same for retirement. My point is, if both spouses were working the entire marriage, the financial impact can be minimal. My kids don't have less...they have exactly the same as they always did--plus another house. Yes, it is a little more expensive overall but who cares? I was in a terrible marriage that never should have happened to begin with and I stayed way too long. I paid in years. A little more expense is nothing. I am never remarrying or living with another person. I would rather be free now than waste more years. Money is not everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're one of those who are only staying together "for the sake of the kids" and may consider divorce when the kids are out of the house, how do you discuss the future with your spouse? Do you talk about plans for retirement? Relocating? If you do discuss these things, are you jut going through the motions? If you don't discuss these things, how do you make plans for retirement and the like?

Never do this.

Never do this.

Kids are so smart. This never ever works. More harm than getting a divorce.

You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

You still don't get it. everything I was saving is literally going into a mortgage which is actually better than sitting in a savings account. No, I am not saving in general at the same rate because it was in savings, but the money was just sitting there. But I can make a profit off a house. I can't make a profit on .5 interest in a high-yield savings. I am saving the same for college, the same for retirement. My point is, if both spouses were working the entire marriage, the financial impact can be minimal. My kids don't have less...they have exactly the same as they always did--plus another house. Yes, it is a little more expensive overall but who cares? I was in a terrible marriage that never should have happened to begin with and I stayed way too long. I paid in years. A little more expense is nothing. I am never remarrying or living with another person. I would rather be free now than waste more years. Money is not everything.

No, you still don't get it. Your situation is unusual. It only works if you are both working, both making good money, and both saving significantly during the course of the marriage. (I don't care whether you have those savings in cash, the market, or being put towards a mortgage. That's irrelevant here.)

You have the luxury of saying a "little more expense is nothing." That's not true for most people.

Now, that doesn't mean they should necessarily stay in a marriage, even with the financial sacrifices that come with divorce. That's especially true if a marriage is "terrible," as you describe your marriage. But it does no good to pretend that most people facing divorce won't have to make financial sacrifices and will find themselves worse off financially.

[Anonymous]

I was 13 when my parents divorced and my brother was 19, and already away at college. It was MUCH harder for him to deal with in the following 10 years, than it was for me. His home life essentially blew up when he wasn't there, and he only occasionally came home to see the mess. It was awkward and uncomfortable for him for way longer than it was for me. Because I got it over with.

This isn't to say it was painless. But there was a certain type of pain of having his childhood home no longer there when he was still very much trying to find his way. He got married 10 years later, and he was very unsure how to treat my father's new wife, because he'd barely spent time with her. Meanwhile, I saw her all the time and had already dealt with some of my discomfort with her presence years earlier.

You don't really get to skip the hard part of divorce. And waiting to do it when your kids don't get to witness it is not a guarantee of smooth sailing. It may be FOR YOU, so you don't have to share custody. But it brings up an entirely new set of emotional issues for your grown children, that you shouldn't ignore if you hope to have a positive relationship with them while they are in the 20s. If you mess it up, you can damage the relationship for their adulthood, which some would argue is the best time of your life.

If you are going to be good co-parents, show your kids how to do that now. Don't wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1-4 make zero sense. I don't know how you think money and standard of living is the same when you literally have to buy a new house and have the expenses of a second home, but with less income. Eventually one or both parents find a new bf/gf and they come with families, even if neither parent remarries.

Because all of the money I was saving by being married per month just sitting in the bank literally pays for my house and everything else. There is not less income. I had income. He had income. While married, my income was mostly saved sitting in the bank and we mostly lived off his. I paid for all of my own stuff and all of the kids stuff and all of the kids chlidcare while married and the rest sat in the bank. We lived below our means while married. So the money is just shifted. It is not a waste to have my own house. I now have my own financial independence and an appreciating asset with full control over my financial future instead of him telling me what do to with my money (ie, me putting it all in the bank and doing nothing with it). We kept our own retirements. There is not less money. It is divided. Only people who live below their means in the first place can make this work. He wanted to buy a $1 million plus house when we were married. I said no. Thank God. Yes, then we would have had to sell it...but that is ridicuous in the first place. We bought less (and I did not want to buy at all) and it enabled us to be able to find a way for one person to keep the house and me to buy my own property. It is a little more expensive but it is not drastic at all. Savings rate for everything is the same.

Your situation is unusual. But you still are ignoring that divorce causes your expenses to go up and forced you to spend what had previously been savings to afford to have two different households. That means you are saving less and there will be less for all those other things.

You may be wealthy enough that this isn't a huge deal and you can still afford most things -- a luxury most do not have -- but there is still less to go around given your added expenses.

You still don't get it. everything I was saving is literally going into a mortgage which is actually better than sitting in a savings account. No, I am not saving in general at the same rate because it was in savings, but the money was just sitting there. But I can make a profit off a house. I can't make a profit on .5 interest in a high-yield savings. I am saving the same for college, the same for retirement. My point is, if both spouses were working the entire marriage, the financial impact can be minimal. My kids don't have less...they have exactly the same as they always did--plus another house. Yes, it is a little more expensive overall but who cares? I was in a terrible marriage that never should have happened to begin with and I stayed way too long. I paid in years. A little more expense is nothing. I am never remarrying or living with another person. I would rather be free now than waste more years. Money is not everything.

No, you still don't get it. Your situation is unusual. It only works if you are both working, both making good money, and both saving significantly during the course of the marriage. (I don't care whether you have those savings in cash, the market, or being put towards a mortgage. That's irrelevant here.)

You have the luxury of saying a "little more expense is nothing." That's not true for most people.

Now, that doesn't mean they should necessarily stay in a marriage, even with the financial sacrifices that come with divorce. That's especially true if a marriage is "terrible," as you describe your marriage. But it does no good to pretend that most people facing divorce won't have to make financial sacrifices and will find themselves worse off financially.

Most people in this area or dual income families working professionals. It also does not make sense for you to espouse an idea of divorce that may have been common 10-20 years ago but that is not the case now. There will be some financial impact, but for many people it is not what you fear it to be. If the financial impact is minimal, which it can be in a lot of cases in areas like this, divorce is not that bad. I am not exceedingly wealthy. I do okay. I work for a nonprofit and have my entire career. But I have also saved since I was 21 and lived below my means. Don't assume other divorces are not like this. I know a few. And I was never saying I was like most people...what I was doing is trying to stop people from making the ridiculous assumption that a divorce is this disaster you portrayed it to be in your ridiculous list. This is not the 1980s or the 1990s.