This is my main issue with the idea of "codependency" because it implies "fixing". One implication is that doing things for others prevents them from doing for themselves and they never learn. The other implication is that choosing *not* to do these things will "fix" the problem. This may be true with children, but not for other adults.
The real issue is when you think your actions can change another person for better or for worse and you expect that change. That's where I see the failure - too many people expecting someone to change if they change *their* behaviors.
I think you are correct in that we can not change another person. Where I think there's a misunderstand is thinking that not doing something for someone will change them. That is not true. If someone told you that, it's not correct.
We can't change another person, we can only change ourselves. However, we do know that by doing something for another person that they can do themselves will prevent them from the possibility of learning. Not doing it won't ensure they learn but it doesn't prevent that possibility.
It's like an only chance action. It might work, it might not but to continue to enable, they are more likely not going to learn.
Truly though, the only reason to work on co-dependent behavior is that we improve ourselves through doing so, not about anyone else. I feel I got the benefit of doing that. This is because these behaviors don't really benefit us in the long run.
But like I said, I hit an emotional bottom. I just didn't want to continue enabling as I could see it was affecting me to take on people pleasing, walking on eggshells, and enabling.
I didn't do it for anyone else. Interesting as I never heard about the idea of it fixing another person, as it was emphasized to not assume that or make it a reason for working on the behaviors. If I did mention anything like that, the sponsor turned it right back on me- we are working on you.
The kids' needs may complicate the situation, but again, it's about our own motives. If the kids need to be picked up, you are doing it for their needs. Maybe it's also enabling your wife too, but the kids welfare is the main priority here. That is not being co-dependent. Same with food, and other needs.
Your wife seems similar to my BPD mother. She really didn't do much and my father compensated for that when it came to our needs when we were younger. I don't think that was the main issue with the dynamics between them. It was more of an over focus on BPD mother, her feelings, her needs, and the walking on eggshells and compromising himself, his finances, and well being. While he also said he stayed for the kids- which I believe was true when we were younger, he stayed past that, and then the dynamic was between the two of them.
I don't believe divorce will change your wife either but that isn't the reason for choosing that, if you did choose that. It would be because it was the best situation for you, and then also for the kids. Why do I say that? Because you are the most emotionally stable parent and your own well being also impacts them too.
While I think custody is a concern, more for my father's era than now, I also saw how affected my BPD mother was. There was no way she could have functioned on her own, or as a parent. Any custody would have been not for long. I think there was real concern on his part for her.
I think my father established a situation similar to what you are doing and also this can persist for as long as you choose it to. That's really your choice and I understand it very well, and have a lot of empathy for your situation.