What should divorced or separated couples do with their children? This is a notoriously difficult problem. When a couple separates, one or both individuals may want to break free from the relationship, but they cannot entirely do so because they have a child in common—or can they?
Consider the following example from a real case story. A couple had two children. The man decided to leave the relationship because he had fallen in love with someone else. When he told his partner that he was leaving, he stated that she need not worry, as he would continue fulfilling his duties as a father. The woman retorted by saying, “In that case, you can keep the children.” The man objected: “You can’t do that. You’re their mother!” Following this, the couple agreed to shared custody of the children.
Here, what prevents the desired separation is the man’s claim that being a mother comes with an unavoidable obligation towards her children. But this is contradictory. On the one hand, he is breaking the family by leaving. On the other hand, he is forcing it back together, “for the sake of the children”, making everyone suffer.
The woman’s reaction in this example may seem harsh, but it serves as a litmus test: if the man truly loves his children and accepts responsibility, then he should be prepared to take on full care of them without resorting to guilt and control. And if he acknowledges the importance of the mother, then he should not keep the children away from her. This seems like a better solution for everyone involved.
Why, then, did this man react the way he did? Sadly, children often result from unconscious needs and repetitions of unresolved childhood trauma. This man’s desire for children may reflect his own family history and his ambivalent feelings toward his own mother—who had expressed her desire for grandchildren when the couple met. By leaving his partner, he enacted two contradictory impulses: (1) identifying with children who need “Mummy,” and (2) betraying “Mummy” by loving someone else.
These unconscious processes are revealed in subtle ways, particularly in speech. The man may use the term “Mummy” or “Mother” when speaking around the child, conflating his own mother with the child’s mother. They also reveal that what is at stake in separation or divorce is not so much the well-being and love of children, but the “love” of the family—a love bound by obligation, tradition, and intergenerational expectations.
In cases like this, the dynamics of separation often expose the invisible chains of society. The mother’s initial response, offering to relinquish custody, serves as a radical rejection of these chains in favour of genuine love and respect. By saying, “You can keep the children,” the mother demonstrates a love for her children that is free of possessiveness and control. She refuses to perpetuate a structure in which children become a tool.
The father’s reaction—insisting that she cannot step away from this system—demonstrates how these moral expectations are upheld. His panic reveals that the children’s well-being is secondary to preserving the structure of the family as he understands it. The notion that a mother could step back and let the father take full responsibility is, in this framework, unthinkable—not because it harms the children, but because it disrupts the traditional roles and exposes the trauma that he has inherited.