We watched a television programme last night about Britain’s immigrants. It featured a Portuguese family — mother, father, seven-year-old son — who had immigrated in order to improve their way of life (“Now we have enough money for rent and food. In Portugal, we did not.”). The mother had two teenage sons she’d left in Portugal and whom she hoped to bring to Britain soon. I found that incredible: how could a mother leave her own children like that for financial gain? No matter how bad it got, surely you should never leave your children? Surely, you suffer whatever comes for their sake? In my heart, I condemned her.
And as fast as I felt that condemnation, I realised that that is exactly what M is going to do. He is leaving his two teenage children here, to move to the US for a better life. He is no different to that Portuguese mother that I felt was so wrong.
Perhaps my feelings were clouded with a certain amount of sexism: as their mother, I assumed she would be a primary figure in her children’s lives, someone they are strongly attached to. Whereas over the past five years or so, M has been systematically cut out his children’s lives, to the point where his only contact with them is for a few hours every two weeks, and their memories of when he lived at home are distorted by fabrications. Their lives are completely of independent of him. Sometimes he is treated as Daddy; often he is treated as a chauffeur, and if they don’t need to go shopping that weekend, they may not turn up at all. So perhaps I see his leaving them as a lesser crime than that of a mother who (I assume) lived with her children and was central in their lives.
But is it? Is it ever any less a wrong to leave your children, regardless of the circumstances? I don’t know, and after my feelings last night, I don’t know what to think.
A few months ago, I was talking about this move with my mother and being honest about the fact that we really don’t want to go. She said that she’d tried to discuss with my dad the possibility of giving us financial help (which I don’t really want, but I appreciate the thought) and my father refused, saying that he didn’t think they should help us while we chose to live in such an expensive place. Actually, the word he used was “subsidise”. He did not want to subsidise our choice to live in such an expensive place. That really stuck in my craw. This was a choice a long time ago, when I was single (and could afford to live here anyway), but it is no longer a choice. This is where my husband’s children live, so this is where he needs to stay if it is at all possible. I think finances would have forced this move a long time ago if it weren’t for that. We’ve stayed this long mostly because of them and we are leaving now with strong misgivings and regrets for their sake. To call our living here a choice is to do the entire situation a serious disservice. It is so much more than just our choice.
In truth, the real choice was my decision to stay home with our two daughters. Or even to have children at all. Before they came along, we were on two incomes and doing fine. Indeed, I assumed I would go back to work and we would continue on our double income. I had no way of foreseeing my conversion to the important merits of stay-at-home parenting. But in the same way that I felt strongly that that Portuguese mother should endure severe sacrifices in order to do her best for her children, so I feel I should do for my children, and that means dealing with serious financial difficulties of living on one income. It is something we are willing to attempt for as long as we can, in order that our daughters can reap the benefits. Indeed, having crossed that bridge into parenthood, I’m not sure if going back to work would actually fix our financial problems anyway: the cost of childcare would eat up so much of any salary I’d earn as to make it a nearly pointless exercise anyway.
So here we are, trying to do our best by all the children in this situation: staying where we can’t afford to live for the sake of M’s children, living on one income for the sake of our small daughters, and sinking in the process. Some thing’s got to give. We have to choose between which set of children we are going to do best by. And given the circumstances, that decision is fairly clear.
But it is not an easy thing to do, and it certainly doesn’t sit well. I don’t know if we are bad, bad people to be doing it. How easily I condemned that Portuguese mother. Should I condemn us any less?
No, don’t condemn yourself. You really seem to be between a rock and a hard place. What’s unfortunate is that your DH’s kids have been restrained from building the kind of relationship that would have benefitted everyone. But even then, I understand the economics of your situation. I MISS Scotland but long-term? I don’t think it would have worked for our family. I am wondering how old these kids are–might there come a time when they have the freedom to come see their father whenever they want, if they can save the money or you can help them out?
Just to say your dad’s comment would have hurt me and angered me too!!! I just don’t think people realize the complications and realities of the way our expat lives play out. I often feel a bit of the “well YOU left it’s YOUR responsiblity to stay in touch, it’s YOUR bed, you lie in it” type thing.
What would be your ideal? To be able to say in the UK with a better quality of life?
Erin, they are just entering their teens. I think there *will* come a time when they can come and see their dad when they want… I’m not sure how it will work in reality — it’s a complicated situation… But it doesn’t change the fact that he is walking out of their lives on an every-day basis, putting an ocean between… It’s such a big thing, really hard for everyone to deal with.
Evenstarlight, The *ideal* ideal would be a house in both countries and enough money to move easily between the two. But the more realistic ideal would be just to be able to stay in the UK, own a house, and me to stay home with the kids until they are in school. But, unless I’m missing a big trick, I can’t figure out how to make that happen.
I’m sure this probably isn’t what you want to hear, but as a previous teenager of divorced parents I just thought I’d add:
a) Teenagers will always reject their parents for a time – it’s part of the process of individuating themselves, testing who they are as no-longer-children, and while it may seem they don’t need their parents, (and is more hurtful in a divorced situation where time is limited), they still need them to be that invisible safety net that is always there. A teen’s job is to pretend they don’t need anyone – a parent’s job is to be there when they figure out that that’s not true.
b) When one side is disparaging the other, the only way to counter that is living by example, letting your presence be a rebuttal. Kids do figure out for themselves that dad’s *not* a monster.
While this is the hardest time for a parent (kids shoving them out of their lives, pretending they don’t need them), it’s also the most important in helping teens define themselves as adults – because eventually they do turn around to make sure you’re still there. Being that nest that they eventually return to must be the hardest bit of parenting I could imagine.
Which doesn’t help your quandry, and I know you’ve probably already considered all that, but just thought I’d add the perspective of someone who’s been there.
Jen,
Thank you for your considered response and, you’re right, it’s not what I want to hear but it is what I know to be true. And, it doesn’t help our quandary, because we’re in such a pickle. If we stay in order to be a rock for his first two kids, we can only do that by a) putting our second two kids in childcare for 40-hours per week and b) living on a financial knife-edge for the next 4-6 years at least. Leaving his kids is less than ideal, but putting our two small kids in full-time daycare is also not ideal. There’s damage either way.
I guess the question becomes, which will cause the most damage… and I don’t know the answer to the question. Day-care kids can turn out just fine… but there’s also research that shows that day-care has significant, long-term negative effects. Leaving DH’s two older kids is bound to damage them, but they *have* got a very large and closeknit family around them, and we’re not planning on cutting off all communication.
I really don’t know where to draw the balance.
Here’s a grand daughter’s perspective for you…
My father’s mother died only two months after he was born. It was a tragic time for the whole family. Dad went to live with his mother’s parents. His Dad remarried a few months later. His Dad started a new life with his second wife and had several children. They would occasionally come to visit my father. Then one day it all seemed to stop. Dad always wondered why his father did this and always had feelings that somehow his father’s other children were better then him. These ideas have followed Dad his whole life and even affected me and the way I think about that side of the family.
I tend to back up everything Jen said. If you want my opinion…I think these are serious matters to take into consideration when making such a big move.
Why is your children more deserving of his attention then his other children?
In short, they aren’t. But by the same token, why are his first two children more deserving than his second two? Because in order to fix this situation, *something* has to give. We are unable to sustain the status quo. Either we move to the US, leaving his two older children, or we stay and put his two younger children into full-time childcare. Either way, one of the two sets of children pays a price. What we have to do is weigh up the two situations with all the related factors and decide which of the two possible roads is going to be *less* damaging.
For what it’s worth, I am a grand-daughter of a very similar situation to the one you described (except my father’s situation was caused by divorce). I am very loathe to create a similar situation and have done everything in my power to facilitate my husband staying close to his children. But sadly, as I said, it has been beyond our control that he has been effectively removed from their lives, until we now at a point where he sees and interacts with them very very little.
I do thank you for sharing your perspective. I am coming to believe that when it comes to broken families, most of it is how you deal with it. Even the worst circumstances can be not-much damaging if they are handled well by the adults in the situation and, likewise, the best circumstances can still cause massive damage if the adults do not handle them well. Although I understand certain courses of action are considered “better”, rigidly sticking to them doesn’t necessarily mean they will have better results.
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between moving some distance away from one’s children, and forgetting about them completely. The two are not the same. There are plenty of families who, despite living under the same roof, never talk to each other, never see each other, never interact with each other, could care less about their so-called “loved ones”. Then there are families who are separated by distance yet who are close, communicative, supportive and, above all, loving. Particularly in this age of instant/text messaging, webcams, email, Skype, and of course blogs 😉 there is no reason at all why M can’t stay in contact with his children. You said yourself he’s being systematically cut out of their lives and only sees them occasionally, despite his close physical proximity. Perhaps moving away may spark a whole new of relationship between him and his children – just a bit different than before. M may find himself having more contact with them than before, only by phone or email rather than the occasional visit. You don’t stop caring about your children just because they’re not close by. Leaving them with their mother (where they have been for a long time anyway, and I’m assuming they’re well cared for) for a chance at a better future isn’t “abandoning” them. IMO it’s a really brave thing to do.
Edenlynn, that’s a really good perspective — that this might spark a new (better) dynamic in their relationship. Thanks for that. You’re absolutely right when you say that the fact that we’re physically close to them has not meant that he sees or interacts with them much. So, it isn’t *all* down to proximity. There is actually the chance that this move could spark a positive change.
[…] come, they come then, when his mind is alive to all the realities of what we’ve done and what — who – he’s left. I am of no use to anyone at this time day, but he wakes me nonetheless and then sits looking at me […]
[…] Did she make him do it?!?… The truth is that he didn’t leave them for me, and we tried everything we could think of to stay. Neither one of us wanted to leave Britain, but we were between a financial rock and a hard place […]