SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

But I was specifically asking the people who don't believe children should be told there has been infidelity that led to the divorce what it is they DO tell them that works.

Ok. I think there is a valid argument that can be put forth:

Most children not capable of abstract thought. Hell, some adults cannot think in abstract terms either. Being that children are very black-and-white thought processors and divorce is a very multilayered subject, parents may believe it in the child's best interest to mitigate any damage.

I'll quote Donald Saposnek, a clinical-child psychologist and family therapist with almost 50 years experience.

"From a child’s point of view, the best divorce is viewed not as the break-up of a family, but as the re-organization of the family unit across two households. Moreover, children are helped to process the divorce when their parents encourage them to bond with both parents within the reorganized family unit.

When I ask parents to formulate a mutual story of their divorce, initially, many are unable. Most of us, when rejected by a person we love or once loved, tend to protect our self-esteem by blaming another for our failures. Certainly, divorce provides a golden opportunity to do this. However, when each parent resists and rises above this tendency for the sake of the children, the children are provided a chance for a better outcome."

Those parents provide a narrative to ensure the non abstract-thinking child doesn't come away with: all was well and good and parent A fucked it all up. Because the truth is although Parent A fucked up and hurt Parent B immeasurably, the relationship was not all candy and milkshakes if divorce is now the only option left.

Also, due to most children's inability to entertain abstract thought, there are BS's who worry that knowing the full scope, will lead to victim blaming; black-and-white thinking cuts both ways. Just because a child is observant does not mean he/she is able to fully grasp the nature of his/her observations.

In short, some parents feel it is the best course of action--due to a child's inability to fully comprehend the nature of complicated adult relationships and have an inherent tendency to process situations in black-and-white manner--believe that handling them with kiddie gloves (no pun intended), is the best way to protect them through a very difficult time. Jack Nicholson, as playing Nathan Jessup, famously exclaimed:

"You can’t handle the truth! Son we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it you? You Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility that you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have the luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago’s death while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence while grotesque, and incomprehensible, to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself, to a man who rises and sleeps, under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and than questions the manner in which I provide them! I’d rather you just said ‘thank you’, and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn, what you think you are entitled to!"

[This message edited by KingRat at 4:01 PM, June 5th (Wednesday)]

Yes, King Rat, I get all that. But I still don’t understand what they tell their children. What story do they give?

I’m not arguing that’s it’s right or wrong exactly because I don’t know what story they tell the kids. I’d like to know what words they used to convey that and to convince the kids it’s true.