Blog

Living Apart Together, or LAT, is emerging as one of the most popular relationship options in today’s culture. Couples who consider themselves devoted are increasingly choosing not to live together, and for some, this arrangement feels more like a relief than a compromise.

The appeal of LAT relationships is from the autonomy they offer: one’s own place, one’s own routine, the opportunity to maintain independence without giving up closeness completely. For many people, particularly those who have been through tough marriages, suffocating codependency, or blatant abuse, LAT gives a chance to be connected to a partner without becoming stuck by them. It is hardly surprising, then, that this paradigm is gaining traction in nations where traditional family structures are under threat and individual liberty is strongly prized.

While adults may find this arrangement appealing, the picture becomes significantly less clear when children are involved. Adults can rationalize their decisions, justify them as practical, and even find them liberating, but children interpret relationship patterns very differently. For a child, love and devotion are often linked to togetherness. The notion that two parents or major adults in their lives love each other but choose not to live together can be perplexing and often upsetting. It makes the child wonder what love is if it does not imply being together. What does it mean for stability and permanence if adults can choose not to live together?

In therapy, I’ve observed this dynamic manifest itself in a variety of ways. One child of parents in a LAT arrangement recounted feeling “like luggage” being transported between two houses, never quite knowing where she belonged. Her parents, both successful professionals, described the arrangement as the best of both worlds: their daughter spent time with each of them separately, while they kept their relationship fresh by avoiding the day-to-day irritations that living together can bring. Yet, from her perspective, it felt like instability. While her parents congratulated themselves on avoiding confrontation, she was left with a sense that her home life lacked structure and her parents were often too busy to spend time with her when she was with them.

On the other hand, there are instances in which LAT has worked unexpectedly successfully for children. Separating living arrangements can protect children from ongoing exposure to tension in households with high conflict, especially where one partner has inclinations towards control or emotional volatility. Children in these situations feel safer knowing that their parents are dedicated but not forced to tolerate each other’s presence when it causes conflict. For them, constancy stems not from living under one roof, but from parents being emotionally available, dependable, and predictable in their respective areas. This can be more healthier than a regular household with underlying antagonism.

The truth is that the effects of LAT relationships for children are determined considerably less by the arrangement itself than by how it is managed. If children’s needs are prioritized—if they are given reassurance, stability, and an age-appropriate explanation—the unorthodox framework can be handled without causing significant harm. Nevertheless, if the arrangement is intended solely for the convenience of adults, with no regard for how it will be interpreted by children, the likelihood of fear and uncertainty increases tremendously.

It is also vital to assess what is being taught to children. Parents educate their children about love, closeness, and devotion not only through their words, but also by their actions. In a LAT relationship, the unspoken message can go one of two ways. On the one hand, it demonstrates that there are many healthy ways to form a connection, as well as how respect for independence and personal boundaries may coexist with closeness. On the other side, it might convey the message that closeness is harmful, intimacy should be avoided, and the safest way to be in a relationship is at a distance. The latter is especially likely if LAT was chosen not as a thoughtful, balanced arrangement, but rather to escape unresolved difficulties, intimacy anxieties, or unhealed hurts from the past.

Routine and predictability are important for children’s mental well-being. Moving between two families, adjusting to two sets of rules, and detecting the underlying tension as parents explain why they do not live together can all disturb predictability. It can also cause tension among friends and peers at school. Even when the adults around them stress that everything is stable, it can feel like the earth underneath them is always shifting. When parents are direct, consistent, and honest, their children are significantly more inclined to adjust. The idea is not to obscure or gloss over the arrangement, but to describe it in words that a child can understand: that parents can love each other while at the same time requiring their own space, and that this does not imply that the child is less loved or cared for.

The growth of LAT connections mirrors greater societal shifts. Marriage and cohabitation are no longer the only accepted forms of commitment. Relationships are increasingly determined by human choice rather than social expectations. This transition provides independence, but it also introduces uncertainty, particularly for toddlers who rely on clear patterns to understand their surroundings. Adults enjoy their autonomy, but children seek stability. They want to know who is here, where home is, and what love is in practice. If the solutions are ambiguous, insecurity can develop.

One must also acknowledge the practical burden that LAT might put on children. Two homes equals two schedules, two school runs, and two sets of things. While some youngsters learn to negotiate this, others see it as a constant source of conflict. Unlike divorce, where the separation is explicitly stated, LAT can leave children feeling incomplete, as if their parents could live together but chose not to. This might easily be interpreted as rejection: if they don’t want to live together, do they truly want to be with me? These are subtle but important questions that children rarely express openly but often experience strongly.

Finally, emotional security is more important to children than a precise structure. They must understand that their parents are committed to them, that love is constant, and that they will not be abandoned emotionally or physically. It makes little difference whether parents achieve this under one roof or two, as long as they are there, consistent, and sensitive to their child’s inner world. LAT can be effective if it is administered with clarity, sensitivity, and anticipation. Without those features, it risks turning into another adult experiment at the expense of the child.

The emergence of LAT relationships is a sign of the times, indicating a shift towards independence and autonomy. For adults, this can be freeing. For children, it can be confusing. It challenges kids to redefine what family means in ways they may not be prepared for. As therapists, parents, or simply reflective viewers of modern life, we must not dismiss LAT as necessarily dangerous or praise it as automatically enlightened. Instead, we must examine its effects on the most vulnerable members of the family. The essential question is not whether LAT is right or wrong, but if, in reality, it serves children’s most basic needs for safety, clarity, and love.

Adults who practice it must be honest with themselves. Is it a lifestyle choice or a covert separation? Have the developmental needs of the child been taken into account? While there are advantages to an LAT for adults, there is a good reason why it is practiced by younger and older couples. The prime reason is to practice adult agency and autonomy but the children’s needs should be paramount.