'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

kafkathecat

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

... this is a sad reflection on our society now - yet you are offering it up as a 'success' story.

Don't you think those children would have wanted both parents around? Wouldn't it be a better environment to have two parents supporting each other?

What about the older child having had 3 different 'fathers' and then having lost them all?

No, parents shouldn't stay together 'because of the children' but... this is the other end of the spectrum.


Your sister made it work to the best of her ability - good for her BUT I shudder at the thought of 'x number of children by x number of fathers' becoming the norm... and the readiness for people to see this as normal.

My mum had children by 3 different fathers. She didn't plan it it just happened that way. It is surprising how resilient children are as long as they are loved and cared for and have enough to eat. None of us felt we missed out on anything and we all married once and had children of our own. We are all over forty.

catkins

lika_86 wrote: »

But do those statistics relate to unmarried couples with children or just unmarked couples who live together? Many couples will live together in full knowledge that they aren't ready for marriage or children, should a couple who have moved in together to see how things go but then split up really be compared to a couple who are married (or unmarried) with children who split up?

Unmarried couples with children are FOUR times more likely to split up than married couples with children

Mojisola

lazer wrote: »

or maybe only have unprotected sex if in a stable relationship and want children.

If you don't want children take precautions to ensure you don't have them - use 2 methods of contraception.

catkins wrote: »

Unmarried couples with children are FOUR times more likely to split up than married couples with children

But is that because some people who are living together but haven't thought that much about the future have children through being lazy or careless about contraception?

If the unmarried couples who split up were researched more thoroughly, I think a lot of them would be couples who hadn't really committed to each other in the long term. I think that the separation rate between committed unmarried partners like neverdespairgirl and her partner wouldn't be that much different to married couples.

The judge said: “I don’t think they should have children until they are sure that their relationship is stable enough to cope with the stresses and strains.”

He's not saying only married couples should have children but that only committed couples should do so.

catkins

Errata wrote: »

The stats do show that, but they include all the couples in their twenties who live together for a couple of months or years who have no intention of having children together and don't.
That scenario is not replicated in couples who marry.

The statistic show that unmarried couples with children are 4 times more likely to split up than married couples with children. I don't know what the statistics are for couples who live together without children.

claire16c wrote: »

Just because someone has a lavish wedding doesn't mean commitment isn't there though.

I know a couple who got married in a registry office, then had a small party in a community centre hall down the road. Which according to a lot of people on this board means you'll be together forever just because you had the cheapest wedding ever.

They split up within 2 years.

I don't see why how much money you spend or how crazy/lavish/cheap your wedding is has anything to do with the strength of your relationship.

I don't really think how much a wedding costs or how big and flashy it is counts for how long it will last although almost all of the couples I know who had big expensive weddings are now divorced (quite a few within a very short time) and the ones who had the cheap weddings are almost all still together.

Maybe all that planning and expense puts too much strain on a relationship? I know couples that started married life with such a big debt due to the wedding that it caused rows once all the excitement of the planning and the actual big day was over. One friend lived in a very grotty part of London in a rented flat. Her and her husband spent over £15,000 on their wedding (I am going back over 15 years). Once all the excitement was over they were depressed at living in a damp flat in a grotty and not very safe area and the fact they could not afford to move away. They split up after 4 years. She said afterwards that they were stupid to have spent that money on 1 day when it could have been a good deposit on a house.

kafkathecat wrote: »

My mum had children by 3 different fathers. She didn't plan it it just happened that way. It is surprising how resilient children are as long as they are loved and cared for and have enough to eat. None of us felt we missed out on anything and we all married once and had children of our own. We are all over forty.

Lots of children are not resilient though. I know lots of people (young and not so young) that have parents that have divorced. Some of their parents remarried and divorced again. Quite a few have not found it easy to accept and it has scarred them for life.

geri1965_2

duchy wrote: »

Really all your post shows is that your sister is better at raising children than choosing committed partners as fathers though.

I don't think she's ever been bothered about having a committed partner, she just loves having kids. That's why she did the fostering as hers started growing up.

She was a bit worried at one point about the lack of a male role model for the kids, but it doesn't seem to have affected them in any way.

They had a lot of love, and I think that's what really matters.

bylromarha

Is it just me then who knows people who think having a child together is the way to show your 3 month commitment to each other?

Dunroamin

kafkathecat wrote: »

My mum had children by 3 different fathers. She didn't plan it it just happened that way. It is surprising how resilient children are as long as they are loved and cared for and have enough to eat. None of us felt we missed out on anything and we all married once and had children of our own. We are all over forty.

When your mother had you and your siblings there was far less reliable contraception available than there is today - that's surely the difference.

Dunroamin

bylromarha wrote: »

Is it just me then who knows people who think having a child together is the way to show your 3 month commitment to each other?

Not just you, I've seen it happen quite often.

They'd probably say it wasn't fair on the dog to get one together at that stage.:(

seven-day-weekend

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm afraid that I do think that saving for years for a wedding rather than spending those same years being actually married (and then saving for your future together) does show a lack of commitment and maturity though. It may not mean that the relationship is doomed but it does seem to me to be based on false priorities.

Me too. I will never understand why a couple who live together and have children together wouldn't get married. I don't think I ever will understand it.

unicorn1984

I got married to my partner of 5 years, we had our son (who was 2 in September) and we have been separated for 14 months. Just because we got married, didn't make our relationship any more secure than others.

I always thought I would only ever marry once and that would be it. However, my husbands behaviour once I fell pregnant wasn't something I intended to live with. He always wanted to get married and our son was planned, something just went off inside him when that all became reality and he couldn't deal with it and started acting like a single care and responsibility-free teenager. Marriage USED to be for life, people of our Grandparents ages never divorced, now its so common, people barely bat an eyelid. So I really don't see how being married makes you better equipped to have children....