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

The source is the ONS.

It is well established that women are significantly less likely to report as it happens so very often to women. It happens hundreds of times to most women day in day out and women do not report. It is not even seen as sexual abuse when it comes to women which is the issue. It is just seen as part of life.

You clearly have experience and I'm sure you're right about these types of women. However, not all are passive, vulnerable puppets. There are many mothers who are equally as abusive as their partners. I've met some.

Males are more likely to admit to being abused. Data shows when it comes to sexual abuse 19% of males report and 16% of females.

Can you provide a source for your data please? It's well established in research that males are significantly less likely to disclose sexual abuse than females, so I'd be really interested to know your source so I can see the data and the methodology myself.

I work in a children's services type role with people who are probably quite similar to these two- actually in the same locality CYPS dept, which makes it feel all the more shocking as it's so close to home....I also live 20 mins from and have recently stayed at one of the holiday parks where they abused the little girl :(

Not saying that Chelsea Gleason meets this criteria for definite, but I've worked with numerous young female DV victims who idolise the most horrible of partners and prioritise them above their lovely innocent children continuously.
Many will come across 'nice girls', just like this one did before entering such a disastrous relationship....passive people pleasers who are outwardly caring, gentle and good with kids and post happy snaps of them on social media appearing cheerful and well cared for. You can't usually fault them in their public interactions with their child, which makes proving their inability to be good parents in all areas difficult.

The undercurrent of danger can be difficult to spot with such women because of the above....they rarely come across as 'bad people or bad parents' in the traditional sense.And they are very good at putting on a front and covering things up (learnt behaviour to protect themselves)

Yet they are like puppets on strings with the partners and anything goes, including losing their child from their care or letting the partner harm them...anything to avoid conflict or rejection with the partner.I don't think that it's even always because they are desperately in love with them- often i think it's because they grew up with a parent/father figure who was violent/ aggressive and taught them that men/older adults are dominant over both young women and children, and they have to do as they say and passively go along with it 'or else' there will be problems for them.(This is also where disguised compliance can come in with professionals)
Some people who have experienced that grow up and realise how wrong that is, and break the cycle, but sadly many others do not and remain in 'victim mode' well into or throughout adulthood.
Someone in victim mode (basically child mode) will not be able to properly contain the needs or feelings of another child, in order to protect them.
(The PAC model of transactional analysis explains this better)

Despite all that though, as a devoted mother of a child of a similar age, I cannot really comprehend this mother's extreme behaviours....allowing such a high level of sustained abuse which she admits she knew may kill the child, and then the depraved way she seemed to calmly push her dead child around in the pushchair in a 'carrying on as normal' way, smiling with her partner and then matter of factly messaging her friend to explain the situation do make it hard to beleive she ever really cared about that little girl, and was not just as evil and dysfunctional as the man.

Living in extreme poverty doesn't equal not being brought up in a loving household. Being poor doesn't have any reference to lack of love at all. Being abused in school sexually as 90% of females are doesn't have a thing to do with your home life. Being bullied doesn't mean you grow up in a household that isn't loving or there are poor role models.

Do you think living in poverty means having parents who are poor role models who do not love their kids? Living in poverty is an adverse experience for children and families that are living in poverty mostly love their kids and nurture them and are just in shit circumstances. That is disgustingly classist to say that they do not live in a loving nurturing household with good role models.

Do you assume that when you are sexually assaulted your genes change suddenly? If so how? Which genes and what changes?

Abuse is not about lacking emotional regulation - you are excusing it and suggesting they lack control. Abusers are in full control of their emotions and actions. It is purposeful and a choice. Stop excusing abuse. Also why are you friends with an abuser?

The study you linked to appears to have taken place in Canada and the article is dated 1985. The stats I gave were the most up to date from the ONS for the UK. I wouldn't necessarily expect for current data to support what was the case 40 years ago.

Some are abusers themselves.

Some are mentally ill/disabilities/low IQ.

Some are addicts (alcohol,drugs) and only aware of their next hit.

Some continue the violent/toxic cycle they've learned through trauma and abuse , by parents, a partner or both.

Some will be a mix of all of these.

That's if you want more than "they're a monster". They're not excuses, they're reasons.

I genuinely find it horrifying how many people are willing to explain away child abuse with SEN, grooming, low self esteem etc.

The bottom line is that being a mum is hard work, being a single mum even more so. It's thankless and crying babies, tantrumming toddlers, sassy seven year olds test all of our patience. The difference is that most people, mums and dads, are able to put that in context. To recognize this little human is learning, they will make mistakes, they are vulnerable. It is our job as parents to be help them navigate this, as kindly as possible, ultimately to keep them safe.

Going to the pub with your boyfriend is always going to be more fun than watching In The Night Garden for the eleventh time that day, or clearing up after your potty training 2 year old. Every day, most parents put their own wishes second and the needs of their child above a good night out.

Some people sadly just aren't willing to do this. Excusing it with poverty, ACEs, SEN etc is frankly patronizing to all the people living with similar, who don't neglect and abuse their kids.

It reminds me of Nimco Ali confronting well-meaning middle class, white people who excuse FGM with "It's their culture, who am I to comment"..."What?! You wouldn't accept this against a white girl, but it's okay if they're black".

If it's not okay for a "naice" middle class mum to go to the pub with her dead daughter in a buggy, why patronize and implicitly insult those with SEN or ACES by saying it is okay for them.

It doesn't excuse it, but it might go some way explain it.Clearly he still had a 'hold' over her, and the toxic and dysfunctional lifestyle and behaviours were reignited when she re-connected with him.

Logically I think it must be explainable in some ways (being abused themselves or else vulnerable in some other way). But since having children, I just can't feel any sympathy for them.

Not protecting your child from harm from a person you brought into their lives is unforgivable. I don't think there's ever any coming back from that.

My children run to me for comfort whenever they are scared or hurt. The thought of those children hoping for their mum to save them is just about the most heartbreaking thing I can think of. It's irredeemable behaviour.

Males are more likely to admit to being abused. Data shows when it comes to sexual abuse 19% of males report and 16% of females. Likely because it is the norm for women and it happens hundreds of times so they never bother.

Having ACEs doesn't make you more likely at all to be abusive. Bullshit. You've watched that video and that is laughable that's what you've taken from it. That video is shocking and so pathetic! It ignores domestic abuse and has so much bullshit in it how it got passed I'll never know.

There is no predisposition for aggression. They choose that behaviour. They are in full control. You are now excusing it as though they do not have control at all. Every single person who abuses is in full control of their actions. There is no predisposition. There is only choice.

So you're saying most who work in safeguarding kids are abusers? That is one huge statement and wholly untrue and quite defamatory.

ACEs do not make you an abuser or more likely to be an abuser. ACEs cannot predict human behaviour. There is no crystal ball that comes with ACEs. You are wrongly labelling abuse victims as abusers and saying they are all now potential abusers as you lack understanding.

Do you support babies taken off mothers at birth and women who have suffered in the past (almost all) should have their kids removed as precaution? Should only.0.7% of women keep their babies?

They should not be being used. If they are then they shouldn't be. ACEs aims to predict human behaviour and we cannot predict it. They haven't read the study if they've extended the list as the list was never meant to be used in that way. It was stolen. So what they are doing is stealing academic work and adding to it without understanding it. The creators have said it is never to be used in this way.

ACEs isn't strength based. It is deficit based. It is saying if this happened to you you will have a life of utter shite. That is not true nor is it accurate.

So using the new model, if someone has been in Syria...what do you predict about them? They're going to beat up their partner or kid as a result l? It's bullshit.

Absolutely being a single woman is looked down upon. I'm a single mother. I have zero intention of being in a relationship whilst my daughter is growing up. A lot of people can't get their heads around that.

I have friends and people at work tell me "Oh you never know what's around the corner." Yes I do, it's me and my child.

"Not all men are bad you know." I know. I have very nice men in my family and as friends. But there will not be a man in my house whilst my daughter is a child and teen.

And the pitying ones who think it's a shame and I should give someone a chance and lower my standards.

I agree, and I think part of this is that being single is looked down upon, as if somehow you are failing.

Would not stop many such instances, though even one saved is worthwhile.

@rickyrickygrimes your final paragraph makes a very important point

It is untrue that ACES are no longer used as a model.

When taken on the narrow frame of scoring you may be right about the negative consequences.

However, you are ignoring how (non scoring ACEs) training can support understanding of individuals who have grown up in an environment conducive to chronic stress and what this might present like.

You are also ignoring the recent work done by organisations such as Grow Together and Liverpool John Moore’s University, which have expanded the list of ACEs and are supporting a positive strength based approach to support. The example you gave of the Syrian refugee, would absolutely be covered by the extended list Liverpool put forward.

I remember having friends at school and uni who were terrified at the thought of being alone. Not having a boyfriend seemed to be the worst thing that could happen to them. One of my best friends was like this: she went from boyfriend to boyfriend, no breaks, and would be out with total arses rather than be alone. To this day, I don’t know what drove that behaviour but I’m guessing it’s what they learned from their own mums / family members, having low self-worth, and feeling inadequate or like a failure if you can’t attract a man to protect / care / support / love you. There was also a fair bit of expecting a man to provide for them, to earn money and provide them with security, a home, material wealth, that they couldn’t get on their own. They would choose a shit man over no man at all, every time.

i can imagine women like this accepting an abusive man into they homes, putting their children at risk rather than being single.

My parents taught me that it’s fine to be single, that relationships aren’t the be all, that I have choice and worth, independent of whoever I go out with. And to keep a running away fund. I’m so grateful to them for this.

Fucking evil bastards, the pair of them. I hope they rot in hell.

CCTV shows couple laughing days after toddler murder

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c86w19l7zzwo

Because some parents are just shit at being parents and are incredibly selfish, that could be a mother or a father.

But it doesn’t really ‘prove’ anything, because for a start, males are less likely to admit to being abused because they experience more shame about their experiences because of cultural and societal norms (a male friend of mine was SA’d and kept it a secret his whole life until it came out when he was drunk one night!). Added to that some people don’t remember their abuse but can still be affected by it.

Also, although females can be just as abusive as males, one would think biology would be a deciding factor in how abusive females are because one, females are biologically programmed to be mothers and have caring instincts, and are physically weaker than males, where as males are genetically programmed to be more aggressive.

Having experienced ACE’s compared to a stable, loving upbringing makes a person more likely to be abusive because they may have a harder time regulating their emotions, have had poor role models, very little nurturing, a genetic predisposition to aggressive behaviour coupled with adversity which sets them off on that path. They harbour resentment for their poor treatment and take it out on others.

Alternatively, a lot of people who have ACE’s - dependant on their personalities etc are perfectly lovely, empathetic individuals, but I don’t know how you can conclude that sufferers of ACE’s are less likely to abuse. It makes no sense.

I mean in the monster mother's own words(from the Ipswich Star) "The court heard her family had warned her not to re-kindle a relationship with Jeff, as she had previously been with him in 2019.
Prosecutor Sally Howes KC said Gleason-Mitchell’s family had “pleaded” with her to leave Jeff and her mother had offered to let her stay with Isabella but these pleas had been ignored.
“If I went back, they would tell me ‘I told you so’ because of what he was like in 2019,” said Gleason-Mitchell.
Ms Howes continued: “So rather than be proved wrong you decided to stick it out and keep Isabella in that environment?”
“Yes” replied Gleason-Mitchell."
She let the other monster beat her daughter to death because her family might comment on her poor choices!

I agree 100%. There's a case in the US Madeline Soto. Not only did the mother serve her daughter up on a silver platter to her pedo bf, when the police said he killed her she text the guys father to get him a lawyer. Then asked if she gad to press charges. Unbelievable.

Lots more people die in car accidents than sky diving, it doesn't mean sky diving is less risky.

I think there is a sort of deep biological drive to be paired up for a lot of women. They probably couldn't explain it, but it's like a kind of obsession, the male object is constantly in their mind and they feel desperate at the idea of not having him.

Maybe it is not that different from the male drive to shag a lot of women, and we know how powerful that can be.