would you stay with your partner if you have a child

shellsuit

thorsoak wrote: »

Life is not always "happy ever after". It never has been, and it never will - apart from in Fairy Tales. Life is hard. Life means work - at relationships, at parenting, at working/earning a living/living on a pension/living alone.

Believe me. Last night my OH of 47 1/2 years died. It hasn't always been a bed of roses -there were times when we didn't/couldn't talk to each other, there were times when there was far more month than money, there were times when there was love and laughter, there were times when there were flying plates (although never flying fists). There were times when the children brought us closer together, there were times when they pushed us apart. Times when we worked really well together, times when we didnt.

But at the end of the day remember this - everything has a price - so if you think that the ultimate price that you will pay for staying with a stressed partner is not worth it - then you walk. It's not this year, nor next - its 5/10/15 years down the line - how do you see the picture then?

Anything of value deserves work and care.

Oh thorsoak, I'm so so sorry, I remember your posts about him being very ill

May he rest in peace xx

gingin_2

So, so sorry to hear that Thorsoak. You've offered some really wise, strong words on this forum over the last few months (and beyond) and I really wish best wishes and peace to you and yours.

Soubrette

thorsoak wrote: »

Life is not always "happy ever after". It never has been, and it never will - apart from in Fairy Tales. Life is hard. Life means work - at relationships, at parenting, at working/earning a living/living on a pension/living alone.

Believe me. Last night my OH of 47 1/2 years died. It hasn't always been a bed of roses -there were times when we didn't/couldn't talk to each other, there were times when there was far more month than money, there were times when there was love and laughter, there were times when there were flying plates (although never flying fists). There were times when the children brought us closer together, there were times when they pushed us apart. Times when we worked really well together, times when we didnt.

But at the end of the day remember this - everything has a price - so if you think that the ultimate price that you will pay for staying with a stressed partner is not worth it - then you walk. It's not this year, nor next - its 5/10/15 years down the line - how do you see the picture then?

Anything of value deserves work and care.

I am sorry for your loss - that is a beautiful post and next time I think things are a little hard, I will remember your words.

podperson

If it is stress then what is causing this - work, family problems, etc? Is this something temporary or is it likely to be a long-term issue? Have you tried talking to your partner about the way he acts and how much it's upsetting you. Think you need to explain to him that while you appreciate he is stressed it isn't fair to take it out on you (and presumably the children?). Look at seeing what you can both do to help him reduce the stress - maybe he needs to see his gp, take some timeout etc. but point out to him that you are in a relationship and you would like him to also make a bit of an effort to spend some quality time with you and the kids without being grumpy about it.
If he's not willing to make any effort or try and get some help then I would never suggest staying with someone just for the sake of the children - kids are much more observant then we tend to give them credit for and they do notice if their parents are unhappy and not getting on. Imo it's better for kids to have two happy but separated parents then two miserable but together ones.

Alikay

Yes, providing violence wasn't a factor I would stay. Our commitment to the child would trounce any right to personal happiness IMO. People manage to function adequately through very unpleasant circumstances (illness, terrible poverty, disability etc) so I'd try and focus on the task in hand: My partner and I would just have to work hard to sort out our problems, even if certain aspects of our marriage were un-fixable (such as the sexual and romance side).

Strangely, my grandparents stayed together "for the children" back in the 50's and ended up rubbing along quite happily for another 40 years. They were distraught when illness, then death finally parted them, so obviously found another dimension to their relationship!

balletshoes

Deals wrote: »

even if he is always grumpy and frustrated and really a pain to live with and he says it is all down to stress (or you guess it is). would you do if for the sake of your children who need a dad or mum around? as this can affect your own well being but you want to help your partner and make the relationship work?

I wouldn't give up on a relationship just because my OH is grumpy, frustrated, a pain etc if its not a permanent thing. I mean, presumably he wasn't like this when you first started living together? Stress can make people horrible to be around, but stress doesn't last forever - theres usually a specific reason for the stress, and when that reason goes, the stress does too. You don't seem to have asked your OH what the problem is? I think thats where you have to start.

Plans_all_plans

I too would stay.

How old are the children? If they are very young, then it IS very difficult at this stage and it can push you to your limits as a couple.

What is he stressed about? If you can fix that, then things will get better.

Sublime_2

I stayed with my ex due to being "persuaded" to have another child, although I didn't really want another one. I had been thinking about going back to work, and leaving him for a good while at the time.

It is hard with children involved. Its not good for them if things aren't good at home, and its easy to lose yourself too.

old_motters

I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell your partner that things have to change and the status quo isn't working irrespective of whether there are kids. I would then propose some sessions with Relate. The grumpiness will have a reason and it might be useful for your partner to get it off their chest and for you to understand where they're coming from. Relate will facilitate the conversation and should hopefully make communication easier in the relationship.

Soubrette

Alikay wrote: »

Yes, providing violence wasn't a factor I would stay. Our commitment to the child would trounce any right to personal happiness IMO. People manage to function adequately through very unpleasant circumstances (illness, terrible poverty, disability etc) so I'd try and focus on the task in hand: My partner and I would just have to work hard to sort out our problems, even if certain aspects of our marriage were un-fixable (such as the sexual and romance side).

Strangely, my grandparents stayed together "for the children" back in the 50's and ended up rubbing along quite happily for another 40 years. They were distraught when illness, then death finally parted them, so obviously found another dimension to their relationship!

I personally would only do this if both partners in the marriage were able to give a semblance of normality and friendship despite the marital problems. If one is, for example, always scornful or cold to to the other or both have bitter, personal rows, then all I think you are doing is showing your children that marriage does not involve respect. Like another previous poster I believe that your marriage will form the pattern for your children to model their marriage on. I don't mind sacrificing a certain amount of my happiness for the sake of the children, but I would not want to sacrifice their happiness as adults as well as hamstring them in their ability to form relationships.