Someone made a post (most of which I did not agree with) that suggested that most harm was experienced by the child when the mother became 'unreliable' Sorry I have looked for the proper quote and can't see it now.

I just wanted to say that I think this is the key. No one can generalize that over the age of 14 young people can cope more successfully with 'abandonment' than younger children; that is ridiculous. BUT I can state from a variety of professional experiences that reliability is the key for most children and young people.

Children can cope with a lot (and unfortunately often have to) but they need to know when they will see 'absent' parents, what that parent will do if contacted outside of arrangements, how their parents will take into account flexible needs of young people growing up etc etc.

To return to OP. I do understand how you feel awkward around your friend, to be honest I could understand if that person was a father not a mother. If you are a friend support her to find the *most consistent and reliable form of parenting she and her ex can manage*. Again I would say this to a father too.

I think it is easy to see that different mothers who leave can be categorised. Agingoth and Lifeissweet have done all they can to make it ok for their children but have left their marriages because they felt tension in the marriage would be worse for the children if they lived together than the problems involved for the children in living separately. It must be a really hard decision to weigh up what is best for the children out of options that both would be hard. They are spending as much time as they can with their children still. I believe they have tried to do the best for their children because they felt that letting the children witness a marriage that they felt had got so bad, was worse for the children than living separately from the man and coping with the difficulties of that. Their motivation for leaving was different to some women's motivation for leaving.

At the other end of the scale are mothers who leave and don't try so hard to see their children often and think more about what they want eg freedom to live the life of a single woman or live with a different man without the children, than what their children need. They have left, not to make things better for their children, but to have what they see as a nicer life for themselves. If they have done this when they were in an ok marriage, not bad enough for the effects of it to be felt by the children more than leaving would be felt, then that seems selfish.

Somewhere else on the scale are mothers who leave abusive Hs. It seems really wrong to me to leave their children with someone who they know is abusive, but I can see that the abuse could impair the mother's judgement because she is emotionally damaged. This does not make it justifiable but it just explains why it happens. If they have a bit of time to think and people to talk it through with then maybe these mothers would decide to change the way they live in a separated way, in ways that would make it better for the children.

It would be hard to know which 'category' women are in without having been there, in their marriages with them, or talking to them lots and lots about it. This thread is making me make a 'mental note' that if I meet someone in this situation, to reserve judgement until I know a lot about the situation. If it was someone I'm already friends with, I hope I would talk to them about it as much as I could get them to until I knew enough to make a judgement. If it was an acquaintence then I would just leave the 'acquaintenceship' as it is without judging as I wouldn't know them well enough to be qualified to judge what 'category' they are in.

Maybe the OP's friend is experiencing some emotional 'unwellness' at the moment but through talking about it to friends she might decide she has made decisions while she was feeling emotionally unwell that she wants to change or modify because her 'illness' made the decisions 'unsound'.

I can see that it is easy for people with 'issues' about this from their own experiences (me included) to make a judgement which is too hasty.

I dont' agree at all that fathers cannot 'bond' with a child on the same deep level mothers can...

I think that the whole pattern of maternal indispensibility/irreplaceability is culturally constructed.

It would actually benefit me to believe that, as I am in a residence battle with my H over my two kids. But they love him just as much as they love me, in fact at times have seemed to prefer him. When they fall over, or are ill, etc, they do not automatically come to me (in fact for ds1 when little the opposite was usually true!!). They tend to go for whoever is nearest tbh!

My own father was far more emotionally close to me than my mother. I would have loved a better relationship with her, but I don't think that that is because she 'meant more to me' than he did. And if anything as I've got older I'm closer to her and less to him.

Very, very dangerous, I think, to generalise from one's own experience assuming that that is 'normal' and 'natural'.

"This means that fathers can never become substitute mothers but actually have their own special bond with the child, which is why children need fathers just as much as they need mothers. But the relationship and bond they have with the children is not the same and that is why a mother f*cks her child up more if she ups and leaves."

That's a non sequitur. I'm willing to accept that there's a qualitative difference between the bond between mother and child and that between father and child. And I agree that, in an ideal world, a child needs a father just as much as they need a mother. But your chain of logic falls apart where you use those facts as justification that the mother leaving would necessarily fuck the child up more. Where's the connection?

I'd say it depends an awful lot on the situation, the parents involved and, as others here have said, what the ongoing contact is like. IME at least the quality and consistency of the ongoing contact is the most important of all those.

foxinsocks, I also think that if the children are older their "need" for the mother lessens somewhat. So a mother abandoning a 14 year old, while not good, is not going to be as emotionally devastating for the child as abandoning an under 10 year old would be. I think that possibly the fathers role could become more important as the kids age, which is why I think it'd definitely be possible for older kids to be equally devastated by their father's abandonment. But for little kids, there is no comparison.

foxinsocks, yes I think that if the father takes over the majority of the childcare then the pendulum would shift somewhat and the father's role and bond would deepen.

But my mother worked outside the home very full time (nights and weekends too- she hated being at home, and was abusive when she was home). My father was a teacher and was at home with us full-time in the summer holidays from when I was about 9. But I still craved my mother's warmth in the way that I didn't crave my father's. I just think there something more in the mother-child bond. I can't explain it, just a feeling. A sense of needing your mother when your sick or in pain, not your father. I think its biological.

but sakura, I wonder if that is because of the traditional family set up

if you were a SAHM with babies/toddlers and left the home, I can see why that would be absolutely devastating to the family because a SAHM of very young children really does keep the whole family together and is the main nurturer (for the children).

My children are older now and both dh and I work full time. I can absolutely say, hand on heart, that it would be equally devastating if either of us had to leave.

I feel sorry for anyone who is in the situation where they feel there is no alternative but to leave their children.

And lifeissweet, what you have done is admirable. You've put your ds first and thought what might be best for him and because of that, he will have a relationship with both you and your exp.

Yes. Her sense of security equates to giving her child no idea about when she'll next be seeing her mum. I'm sure it's a view of parenting that's equally valid and that the child will grow up with great respect for her mother.

Unfortunately my personal experience and that of several other people on this thread does not bear this out. I had a best friend at school whose mother did exactly the same thing, wandering in and out of her children's lives when she felt like it. My friend was never able to form a proper relationship with her mother as a result and ended up not wanting anything to do with her.

I cannot think of one single RL example (which is what the OP actually asked for - people's personal experiences of this situation, which I have given more than enough of) in which a mother's unreliable behaviour did not create huge emotional fallout for her children.

There were a couple of posters earlier in the thread who said their mother leaving didn't leave them with emotional scars. I'm very glad for them. I hope you can give me some examples of your own, Blackduck and the other posters here who haven't drawn from their own RL situations, to counter my experiences, which have obviously left me so judgmental!

Have read about half the thread and wanted to add that my sons are 2 and 4 and although I am married, work outside the home, study in my spare time, have help with childcare and the boys have a fab and very hands on dad I absolutly do see my primary role as being my childen's mother.

I could give up everything mentioned above (even my much beloved husband if absolutely necessary) but never my children. I had assumed all women with childen felt this way.

OP; It is difficult to maintain a relationship with people who you feel hold wildly different values without a lot of discussion and hard work. I hope you manage to work it out.

I believe that it a woman abandons her children it is "worse" than if a man does, and I believe that the effect on children is more far-reaching. Whether we like it or not I believe men and women are different, which is why talks about "equality" between the sexes always confuses me. Women need to be helped (financially, psychologicaly) to stay with their kids if their situation is so desparate that they feel they must leave.

As for women who leave to have a carefree lifestyle, new bloke or whatever, I believe they do so because they are severely emotionally damaged: attatchent disorder, personality disorders etc. I'm not excusing the behaviour at all. I'm saying that I view such women as being sick.
I do belive in the maternal instinct. I believe its stronger than the paternal instinct and I belive that it is womens' lot in life. What we get in return is a deep bond with and influence over our children.

Studies have shown that the bond between a father and his children is inherently different to that of a mother's bond. The father-child bond is not a watered down version of the mother-child bond: it is unique in itself. This means that fathers can never become substitute mothers but actually have their own special bond with the child, which is why children need fathers just as much as they need mothers. But the relationship and bond they have with the children is not the same and that is why a mother f*cks her child up more if she ups and leaves.