Living with Children: Dad says co-sleeping destroyed his marriage | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: Dad says co-sleeping destroyed his marriage

A New York writer named Jonathan Daniel Stern, writing in the Aug. 7 issue of the e-zine “Fatherly,” laments that co-sleeping has destroyed his marriage. As best as I can figure, Stern and his ersatz wife are still married and live under the same roof, but the marriage is gone, kaput, sacrificed to the co-sleeping demon. She sleeps in one bedroom, with the two kids; he sleeps in another bedroom, alone.

The Sterns have battled over the arrangement for as long as they’ve been parents. In the meantime, Mrs. Stern has collected reams of evidence to the effect that co-sleeping is good; Mr. Stern has collected a matching stack to the effect that co-sleeping is a destructive folly.

He is right, of course.

Yes, there are studies “proving” that kids who co-sleep with their parents are as well-adjusted as kids who sleep in their own beds. So what? First, research in the so-called social sciences proves nothing. Second, if kids who don’t co-sleep are as well-adjusted as kids who do, then what is the point of co-sleeping? When all is said and done, the Stern marriage has failed for no good reason at all.

Co-sleeping was popularized by the 1976 book “The Family Bed” by Minnesota housewife and community activist Tine Thevenin. Since then, co-sleeping has contributed to countless divorces, including that of actress, author and noted co-sleeping and attachment parenting advocate Mayim Bialik. From the start, when Thevenin’s book came out, I didn’t like the idea and began ranting against it in this column.

Thevenin pointed out that in certain other cultures, parent-child co-sleeping is the norm. I pointed out that the cultures in question — without exception, aboriginal — were still using stone tools and asked, “What is the sense of Twentieth Century (now Twenty-First, of course) American parents using Stone Age cultural practices as their model for doing anything?” I also pointed out that as the cultures in question move into modernity, parent-child co-sleeping is left behind and quickly forgotten. When a family can afford two bedrooms, the children sleep in one, the parents in the other.

The argument for co-sleeping consists, entirely, of emotional appeals. One article went so far as to accuse parents who did not co-sleep of abandoning their kids at bedtime, of inflicting upon them a form of psychological torture. That’s odd. Even when my mother was a single parent, I slept alone. It was not torture. It was my preference.

Some parents who co-sleep testify that their kids are happy and well-adjusted. Okay, but that begs the question: Are parents who co-sleep able to assess their children’s social and emotional adjustment with any degree of objectivity?

After detailing the stress that his wife’s co-sleeping has put on their marriage, Mr. Stern seems contrite. He still believes that it is harmful to the child and “bombs the family,” but he then says that “had I realized sleeping together as a family surely beats sleeping alone forever, I might have surrendered my position before it was too late.”

No, Mr. Stern, you should not have surrendered your position. You are right. Your wife is wrong. She has responsibilities to the children, but she made a vow, a promise, to YOU, not them. The children do not come first. Neither do either of you. Your marriage comes first. It is, in fact, the most important thing in your children’s lives, which they won’t ever appreciate if you don’t pull yourselves back from the brink. It’s not too late.

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website; readers may send him email; because of the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.