(CW Child abuse) Why do mothers not protect their children from abusive boyfriends

No excuse for it. Anyone who can watch their child endure abuse is as bad as the perpetrator. I will never understand why you wouldn't give your last breath defending your child no matter what

Of course it's ok for both parents to move on and have new partners, in some cases I think it is beneficial for the children. If children have grown up seeing a tumultuous relationship between their parents, going on to see a healthy relationship can only be a good thing, massive emphasis on healthy! This thread is obviously about the perils of poor choices.

It is also ok for parents to have additional children, they do however have to accept that their existing children may not like it and accept the potential consequences of doing so.

My situation is different because it was my SC biological mother that was causing them distress, her having another baby was the nail in the coffin but they had decided they didn't want to live there long before the pregnancy announcement.

I don't disagree entirely, it would depend on the new partner. Anyone can be a stepparent but it is very difficult to be a good one. Her partner is actually an alright guy, so it was never the introduction of stepparents that bothered them, it was the idea of a new sibling that tipped the scale so to speak. I don't think it's an uncommon reaction for existing children, I've certainly read enough comments from others on MN regarding their experiences growing up in a blended family.

@Betchyaby so it's not OK for the ex-wife to have a new relationship but it is OK for her ex to do that?

And given the number of step mothers on here who demand their right to have a child, regardless of how many existing children there may be (on both sides of a a new partnership), presumably you extend your argument to include them? Or is it just ex-wives who shouldn't be allowed to have additional children once they have 'moved on'?

She sounds like a shit mother for sure, but the argument could be extended to say it’s in the interest of the children to not introduce a new partner in to their life, at all, including a man moving in a new GF.

There is a lot of arguing back and forth on this thread regarding the reasons why, but it all boils down to selfishness. Women prioritising their wants and needs over that of their children.

I am a stepmum, my stepchildren live with their father and I the majority of the time. They see their mum every other weekend. Their mother is remarried and decided to have another child, this is one of the reasons why the custody arrangements changed from 50/50 to EOW.

During the pregnancy the children were devastated at the introduction of a half sibling. To this day, she takes absolutely no accountability for the results of her choices, instead she insists that the children were manipulated into living with us and employs emotional blackmail (the kids have gladly got wise to this tactic)

Bottom line is, some women will refuse to accept they make selfish decisions that affect their children because they are too busy pursuing what they want. It baffles me but I know of at least 4 women IRL who behave in this way.

@BeDeepKoala your first link isn't about abusers (maybe that's intentional), it's about how certain genotypes have been associated with traits that can make someone vulnerable to poorer outcomes having experienced childhood maltreatment, such as how predisposed they are to PTSD or whatever.

I've only had time to skim through the second link but similarly, it appears to be talking about how certain genotypes have been linked to certain traits, and how a particular combination of genotypes together with certain environmental factors have been associated with an increased probabilistic risk of aggressive behaviour. That's not the same thing as saying x genotype is known to make someone an abuser, lots of people will have genotypes associated with undesirable or abusive behaviours but won't exhibit the phenotype. Plus SNPs aren't necessarily functional, many just sit there not doing anything.

@LoremIpsumCici

Of course there are "abuser genes" (again, this is obviously a simplistic way of phrasing it) -- essentially every human behaviour is at least 40% hereditable, which has been confirmed across hundreds of studies. Every trait which is linked with propensity to abuse has a strong genetic element (violence, anti social behavior, narcissism, alcohol abuse, etc). Exposure to childhoose abuse has also been shown to be hereditable in multiple studies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432300037X#bib11

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432300037X

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3696520/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3920596/

@LoremIpsumCici I'm so sorry you had to endure abuse from your mother too, and I wish you had been safe ❤️. The religious element must have been a whole other dimension of horribleness to have to contend with. Mother-child abuse is much more prevalent than many people realise or care to believe, and it's often seen as a much lesser crime with a much lesser impact. I told multiple professionals about the abuse I was experiencing and none took me seriously, even when I tried to take my life over it. I remember being told that mothers and teenage daughters famously don't get along, I was ultimately just thought of as a 'problem child'.

I can’t get my head around how/why anyone can do such things to a defenceless child either. I agree that no matter what abuse you may have suffered, there are certain extreme abusive behaviours anyone will know are going to be wrong.

The only thing I can think in these cases is that their ability to feel empathy is seriously impaired. I think it's unusual for someone to feel the same lack of empathy for everyone, so maybe whatever nerve the child is touching runs so deep that it somehow results in the same kind of lack of empathy the average person might have for, say, a person who mugs someone. It would be interesting to do an fMRI to see which parts of the brain are most active when an abuser thinks about the person they abuse. I might have a look to see if there's any studies on this.

I wish we could better identify them and keep children safe too. I wish the care system wasn’t full of abusers too- you’d think the government would care enough to ensure children in care aren’t being abused but that isn’t the case.

I feel like there's so little awareness of it in general. I get the impression that a lot of people think of children's homes as some sort of Victorian thing that no longer exist. John Lewis are doing some good work on this.

For example, its easy to be a parent that doesn’t hit if you’ve been beaten as a child, but not so easy to realise that belittling and shouting while less abusive than hitting, is still abuse. A survivor needs parenting classes or support that advise them on what they should do, and as well as to learn what is abusive as they may think, for example, that belittling is banter or tough love and screaming is ok when you angry because it’s not physically hurting another person.

This is true. Something a bit like the Freedom Programme but for parenting. I guess the hardest part is finding a way to get people to sign up to it. The John Lewis Building Happier Futures campaign looks great and I wish something had existed like this when I left care. I remember going to a care leavers' youth club type thing a social worker had directed me to. Nobody was employed or in higher education, and some already had children. A group asked me if I wanted to get some cans and smoke weed with them down the seafront. It was a sliding doors moment for me.

Also the ICD.....a book that lists battered woman syndrome
created using rock, paper and scissors and no science behind it either! Nah thanks! More so now it is being used to prescribe death to ppl who do not fit into societies' standards and need removing from them. In a field that actually says wandering womb still exists and that being black is a disorder then nope I will not respect that book at all

No, that’s not in the ICD. No, “wandering womb” isn’t thought of as still existing and hasn’t for over 400yrs. No, nowhere does it say that “being black is a disorder.” You have really been de-educated on psychology.

By all means subscribe to that field and use stigma to harm others but I'd rather shit in my hands and clap than believe anything written in those 'books' (toilet paper). Nah this was about evaluating the psychiatric disorders. The one that basically has a tick list inside it and if you meet certain criteria then you are labelled as abnormal with a condition that there is no proof exists.

Geez. Everything you write is from the right wing conspiracy playbook.

So you don’t believe that any mental disorder exists. So people who are suicidal, anorexic, seeing hallucinations are what? Lying? they aren’t really feeling these feelings? Or seeing things that aren’t there? What about trauma, is everyone with PTSD lying about that too because trauma doesn’t affect you at all. Like a Marvel comic character you just bandage your wounds make a funny quip and carry on like nothing happened?

@BeDeepKoala
I think @schmeler point of possible dishonesty inflating the rates of reporting past abuse has already been taken into account. The systematic review looked at 97 studies across the globe and the rates reported were equal to or greater than 75%. Sugar&Spice taking the lowest reported rate was adjusting for dishonesty imho because only a few countries allow past abuse as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The incentive to be dishonest doesn’t exist in most of the countries studied, and would not have affected the lowest 75% rate reported out of all the studies.

There are no known “abuser genes.” They have sequenced the entire human genome. No scientific researcher qualified in science is going to put that in a study as a limitation without any evidence such genes exist due to the history of eugenics. There were numerous other applicable confounders assessed and adjusted for though.

Finally, in looking at the review Sugar&Spice posted there was never any claim of a causal link, but rather an association that past abuse increased the risk of future abuse. Therefore, the evidence shows that victims of abuse are more likely to abuse their children. We may not know why or the cause, but the association is clearly present across the planet. Sclemer was incorrect in her posts saying they were less likely.

Likelihood doesn’t have to have causality as it is about probability. There was no assertion that past abuse causes future abuse.

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice

While I agree that most schmeirer's posts display a very poor understanding of causal reasoning, I think her point here is indisputably correct.

The systematic review you posted shows that abusers are more likely to report abuse than the average person. However abusers have a direct incentive to lie about being abused, because it is one of the factors that may result in more lenient sentencing. Therefore, even if they got abused at the same rate, you would still expect to see them reporting higher levels of abuse, through dishonesty. Unless you have a credible way to estimate what percentage are lying (which I think you don't) there is no principled way to say that the link is causal.

The other confounder that hasnt really been touched on in those studies is genetic confounding. If there is a certain genetic architecture which makes people more likely to abuse (which there is) then it follows that the children of abusers would be more likely to commit abuse, for biological reasons. As such, even if you could credibly demonstrate that abused children were more likely to commit abuse, it would not be correct to state this shows that the abuse was a causal factor -- they might just have the "abuser genes" (to put it very simplistically).

I think this lack of credible causal reasoning is sadly a cornerstone of much social science research, and those studies are prime examples. Without actual RCTs or quasi-experiments, all you really have is correlation.

It would be nice to think that,
but when you look at countries in the Middle East where they treat woman with such disregard and contempt, I think some of them are monsters. I’m thinking of the poor Afghan Women who anren’t allowed to leave the house, no schooling, battered if they look in the wrong direction. They are abused in every way yet it’s considered absolutely fine, in guise of religion there of course.

There is always an excuse and justification but some people are just pure cun*s

I'd rather use the DSM-V as toilet paper given that is what it is worth! I don't read fairy tales especially ones where the authors admit they made it up! Not least something that is just the epitome of stigma and racism, homophobia, classism, misogyny, elitist book used basically as an abusers handbook and created using rock, paper and scissors and no science behind it either! Nah thanks! More so now it is being used to prescribe death to ppl who do not fit into societies' standards and need removing from them. In a field that actually says wandering womb still exists and that being black is a disorder then nope I will not respect that book at all.

Also the ICD.....a book that lists battered woman syndrome because a woman's reaction to being abused is that much of a problem for society that they label it and the pereptrator's behaviour is not problematic to need a label so their behaviour is not an issue at all - just hers? Then say it is not an issue being abused it was a syndrome you had that caused it. Really? Is being abused and battered a syndrome or do we just stigmatise and try and pathologise women's distress at being abused instead of dealing with the abuse?

By all means subscribe to that field and use stigma to harm others but I'd rather shit in my hands and clap than believe anything written in those 'books' (toilet paper).

Nah this was about evaluating the psychiatric disorders. The one that basically has a tick list inside it and if you meet certain criteria then you are labelled as abnormal with a condition that there is no proof exists.

All three of them are a crock of shite.

Which diagnostic ’booklet’ would that be? If you are talking about the DSM-5 or the ICD-11 you are showing your ignorance. Neither of those fall anywhere near the definition of a booklet. Both manuals are huge!

I too think the majority are not of the ‘evil’ parent /monster sort. Which gives me hope because if most were monsters, then this is an unsolvable problem for society.

Well from what I read he doesnt come across as inept as such, the focus on 'punishment' and the need to control would put him more in the category where he got something out of it, rather than just not being able to manage himself and care appropriately if that makes sense.

@kitteninabasket
I am so sorry you had an abusive mother a horrific lack of a childhood. My mum was an abusive alcoholic religious nutcase so I feel for you. It messes you up, especially in this culture where we have a lot of mother-worship and it is harder to be believed by anyone when it’s a mother instead of a father that is abusive.

Yes, I agree. Abusive parents that are malevolent, cold and calculating monsters do exist.

I can’t get my head around how/why anyone can do such things to a defenceless child either. I agree that no matter what abuse you may have suffered, there are certain extreme abusive behaviours anyone will know are going to be wrong.

I wish we could better identify them and keep children safe too. I wish the care system wasn’t full of abusers too- you’d think the government would care enough to ensure children in care aren’t being abused but that isn’t the case.

I wish you had been safe. ❤️
I too feel anger and grief over being robbed of a childhood.

I think mitigation might be helped with parenting classes that focus on what you should do, the right way to parent. Survivors of childhood abuse might know what not to do for extreme abusive behaviour, but not what they should do instead.

For example, its easy to be a parent that doesn’t hit if you’ve been beaten as a child, but not so easy to realise that belittling and shouting while less abusive than hitting, is still abuse. A survivor needs parenting classes or support that advise them on what they should do, and as well as to learn what is abusive as they may think, for example, that belittling is banter or tough love and screaming is ok when you angry because it’s not physically hurting another person.

We see the cycle of violence tends to be one of improvement from one generation to the next if survivors are genuinely trying their best with little guidance.

Which category would you put Sara Sharif's father into?

What would the hallmarks of an 'evil' parent look like?

I'm genuinely curious because I struggle a great deal with trying to work out whether my mother truly wished me harm or whether harming me was simply a means to an end.

In my career working with children and families in the courts and safeguarding, the 'evil' parent is few and far between, no matter how horrendous their actions I can count on one hand the parents I have worked with who liked or calculated the harm and abuse. Over 25 years.

most are inept, like children themselves, MH, DV, SEN, LD, ND, dysregulated, substance/alcohol misusers. Pretty rubbish parents but without intent so to speak

Im talking about physical and emotional harm and neglect however, not sexual abuse.

I can get my head around someone who, say, experiences emotional dysregulation or c-PTSD as a result of child abuse and might, for example, lose their temper a lot and on occasion impulsively smack their child for a minor misbehaviour. Afterwards they feel terrible they lost control and apologise. There are no other forms of abuse and they are an otherwise decent parent.

And I can get my head around someone smacking a child because, as you say @LoremIpsumCici, they were smacked and they genuinely don't see the problem with it.

But then you get a different kind of abusive parent who is malevolent and calculating. They think about the abuse they want to inflict in advance. They can see the terrible consequences of the abuse but plan to do it the next day and the day after that regardless because they derive some kind of satisfaction or pleasure from it. I can't get my head around this type of parent. Even if they experienced this kind of abuse themselves in childhood, I don't believe that they could watch a child struggle to breathe and pass out as a result of their abuse and not know it was wrong.

I can see how the right kind of intervention could change the behaviour of the emotionally dysregulated parent, but how do you intervene in the case of the malevolent kind? And being calculating and controlled, they're more likely to be adept at pulling the wool over people's eyes.

How can we recognise these types of people and how can we keep children safe from them? How do we make the call on whether to take the child away or not? Where will the child go if they're taken away, is a foster or children's home available? How can we assure their wellbeing if they are taken to a foster or children's home? How do you prevent the abusive parent regaining custody? And how can we mitigate the chances of a child growing up to become one of these parents when we (as far as I'm aware) don't know why some children grow to be impulsive parents, some grow to be malevolent parents and some grow to be parents who don't abuse?

I feel very angry about all of this because it happened to me, the daughter of a malevolent mother. Both she and the system failed me at every step of the way. The only reasonable outcome I can think of is if I had been placed with foster parents who genuinely cared about me and provided a safe and stable home for an indefinite period. Instead I was put in temporary foster care with unpleasant foster parents before being sent away to an awful facility which fucked me up well and truly.

There must be a better way, but what?

It is a complete mind fuck and can happen in so many ways.

As well as your scenario, maybe nothing happened because no one believes you. This is admittedly more likely when a child is disclosing abuse by one parent to the other parent, or to an extended family member.

Yes exactly! I would expect that alot of boundary blindness in childhood abuse survivors would relate to neglect, verbal, and emotional abuse as those are harder to define and identify when in the thick of it. We see lively debates on MN with frequent disagreement as to whether an OP’s situation was abusive or not. If it’s hard for people with normal childhoods to identify & escape, then it must be incredibly harder for childhood abuse survivors.

And sometimes the system unwittingly contributes. Imagine the absolute mindfuck of being told again and again to use kind hands, we do not hit, use your words , how bad and wrong hitting is etc. Then you make a disclosure or two or five and there's some fuss, maybe a meeting with the parent, maybe a SS visit and then... nothing. So maybe it is ok, maybe it's not that bad , maybe that's what everyone does, maybe hitting when angry is ok etc.

@LoremIpsumCici
Very thoughtful and well expressed post. Thank you.