TW To notice that a lot of child murders have one thing in common

Not sure if it's a recent development but judges seem to have adopted a soap opera role. The Sharif case where the biological mother was heavily criticised by a Family Court judge for being uncivil to the woman who went on to be convicted of her murder was shocking.

Too too often true. When I separated I knew I’d never move another man into my home before the children got to the age of 18, in order to keep them safe. And I was very cagey re being a parent when OLD; no mention of age or sex. Naturally my ExH had no such concerns and his replacement wife has bullied our children horribly to the extent of children requesting therapy.

@Bunbry As a mum who "lost", for the majority, both of her sons to an abusive - but incredibly manipulative - narc and controller, my children and I both know the trauma of a "Father's Rights at all costs" system.
It needs to change. And quickly.

There is so much coverage of these terrible stories that it can make you think like this. it's extreme to say that you'll never go near another man and hope your daughter is gay, and I think it's a sign that you're exposing yourself to these stories too much. There have always been horrendous people. You just need to spend time with good people and not focus overly much on these dreadful tales.

The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat.

The problem with this kind of thinking is the 'know that their new partner is not a threat' bit. Don't you think that's what the vast majority of women whose partners come into the home and abuse their children think? They'd all say they know he's not a threat. But they don't know. And they don't act with caution or care, because it's lovely Steve! He's not a p**do or a bad guy! And then later it's... well it's Steve's home too, he's entitled to discipline the kids if they're not doing XYZ' etc. And 'Of course he looks after X overnight when I go away. He's like a dad to her.'

I have known a monster. He did not say 'Hey folks, I'm a monster'. He was nice Steve, the partner that someone would KNOW is not a threat too, given half a chance.

A biological mother and father both love and care deeply for their child and want the best.

You never met my Dad, then.

When I divorced my ex my children were all small and I had full custody. I made a promise to myself I would never live with anyone until they were all safely off to uni. Eldest is in first year, middle one in A levels and the last is doing GCSEs.

I’ve had an absolute ball dating, much more fun than my 16 years with the ex. These days I have a fairly significant ‘other’ but I don’t live with him, he doesn’t stay overnight, the kids didn’t meet him until I had known him for almost a year, and everyone knows that they are my absolute priority.
I have never understood women who turn to a new man and start that awful fawning dance and let a stranger come in to their children’s lives like that.

Biological parents can also be murderers; look at the recent case in which a bio father was given custody of his daughter DESPITE having a history of being violent.
It's the family courts failing children too.

Everyone has noticed it. Dr. Phil said on his show years ago that a child who lives with a stepparent is 35x more likely to be a victim of abuse.

Biological parents can also be murderers; look at the recent case in which a bio father was given custody of his daughter DESPITE having a history of being violent.
It's the family courts failing children too.

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

It's inherently risky, an unrelated adult living with a child, without all the inbuilt safeguards of the parental bond. Think of all the intolerable crap we all take from our kids in the course of daily life, and how much harder it would be to do it for a child you didn't love and hadn't known since birth. Blended families and stepparenting are fraught with difficulty and risk, and people enter into it far too easily. Adults tend to think about their own relationships and their own compatibility, while children are just seen as homogeneous units who will fit in with whatever is decided. It rarely makes a happy family, and at the extreme end it's lethal.

Tbh I'm just sick of fucking male violence. What the fuck is wrong with them? I feel like they're another species and want to move away to a female only island.

What with these kids, Gisele, the poor nurse who was murdered by oral rape. God they are disgusting.

There something seriously wrong going on in modern society. I will never go near a man again and I hope my daughter turns out gay. I'm just sick of it all.

Fully expect the "not all men" responses. Don't care.