Thursday, March 24, 2011

New York Times blog

I am shifting gears to a more serious side, but I am so glad I found this and really hope y'all have time to read it.
This is a really good article, but I mostly appreciated the second half titled:
Stay-At-Home-Parenting After Divorce by Amber Hinds   (in response to the first half)

It makes total sense to me.  Original decisions based on what is best for the kids shouldn't be changed after divorce.  The change that divorce brings with it is all the more reason consistency should exist as much as possible!  In my situation, my kids, more than ever, need me to be there as much as possible. I am their only parent right now.  If I am not concentrating on them 100%, then I have totally failed them and not completed the JOB I started.  Then, my kids and their future relationships will pay for it in the end.  I am left with no choice but to be there as much as I can.  How can I "afford" not to?  I owe it to them, but it is what  they deserve.

If one parent holds up her end of the agreement, then the other should also.  It's all in the kids' best interest.  There is no room for selfishness.


I would really like to know what all of you think.

2 comments:

Sorta Southern Single Mom said...

I'm with you on this one. I stayed home for 4 years after my divorce, just starting back to work full time, out of the house, this year. It was so worth it to me to give my kids that stability and time to adjust. I'm so grateful I was able to do it!

thesisterhoodofspiritualsinglemoms said...

Thank you for commenting! I think it is really important to keep things as normal as possible for the kids. My checkbook might not thank me, but I think the kids will. It is good to hear from someone that took that time for adjustment.