Put aside your romantic cravings, your need for financial stability, or becoming "complete." To me, it was a no brainer: as long as my kids were still not legal adults, they--and not another adult--would be the focus of my attention and the recepients of my time and financial resources. Does this statement reveal anything about complicated subjects such as love, companionship, or practical necessity for a financially dependent ex-spouse? I don't think so. But, for me, I often thought about why Jesus didn't pull any punches when he said "re-marriage after divorce is adultery." I wasn't thinking Jesus meant it as moral decree dealing with sexual promiscuity, but rather, an abdication of my duties as the father to three little ones, who at the time needed someone completely focused, serious, and responsible for their well being. Could I have given them the time and money necessary if I had taken on a new wife in what at best would have been a new crapshoot? If I had failed at "natural" marriage, what would suddenly make me so successful in an "unnatural" marriage with a blending of children?
I have had the opportunity to date since my divorce nine years ago, and my kids are getting closer to becoming legal adults. The female adult company was always plain nice. But, I may have been a disappointment to some of the ladies I dated because I chose not to be anything more than friends. I don't think St. Paul viewed re-marriage as the quick solution either. Perhaps, as some kind of spin-off from Jesus' prohibition against remarriage, he thought it best that we, as a community, care for one another. I don't know the answer; I just have gut feelings about why it was better not to remarry. If you think God is going to send you a man, you might be right; but expect St. Joseph and not the town knight in shining armor.
The moral of the story is--the kids come first; and a single parent, with a good support network, can help the kids more than by getting into a second, riskier, marriage.