to be surprised at the Home Office' definition of DV

[OneMoreChap]

which apparently is:

Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence, or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.'

Emotional abuse?
How do you define that?

I saw one definition as: Emotional abuse is the act of belittling, ignoring, corrupting, acting cruel, isolating, rejecting, and scaring another person

XW certainly did 4 of those.
Are they seriously saying I suffered DV?

Violence or threatening behaviour I can see, but some of the other stuff? Surely grist to the MRA mill?

That would define me as an abuser in the past.

I would agree with that, and that a couple of men were justified in behaving violently towards me (which I know some posters don't like being said, for good reason)

I would say they've made the definition deliberately wide, interpreting guidelines must be a difficult thing when you're faced with the complicated ins and outs of a persons life.

Does some of it come down to how you feel about your situation?

Not everyone who's living in an abusive situation realises they are because they're living it. Sometimes it takes someone from the outside to define the possible factors involved.

onemorechap. Better to have a definition that offers protection to people who maybe vulnerable than leave someone suffering unnecessarily.

The definition is as broad as it's long as this is an emotive area. Consultation with support groups, feedback from Parliamentary debate etc all shaped the definition. It's used by DWP as well to ensure those who leave an abusive relationship aren't penalised when trying to resettle etc.

Whether you feel you suffered DV whilst with your XW is a subjective decision only you can make. You sound sceptical that you did. Someone else in your situation may feel they were subject to DV.

the definition is there to give Departmental decision makers a starting point. That coupled with information from the person suffering DV ensures they get the help and support they need.

I agree, the definition is there to give people a starting point.

I imagine everyone would have been guilty of emotional abuse at some point given this definition but it's all to do with the context isn't it?

If it begins to impact on the other persons behaviour/decision making processes/enjoyment of life/participation in 'normal' life activities/opportunities etc. then it is abusive.

*could rather than would. Just acknowledging the vagueness of the description

It's a useful description, but it's not a definition of criminality.

Just as one can read the definition of ADHD and think that fits every child on a bad day, you'd need to look at this list and think about incidents in terms of their frequency and severity, and about the intent of the person.

I think it will be useful if it encourages police to think about DV in the round IYSWIM, and look at patterns of behaviour and (I hope) be less likely to think of incidents as a series of unconnected one-offs, and more likely to see the pattern when non-criminal but abusive behaviour is present forms he link between more sporadic but more obviously the potential criminal acts.

i have known many people to be in emotional abusive relationships and they are unable to see it. one friend said if he had hit me i would have known it was wrong but the lies, the putting down, the ignoring became part of their marriage it was just the way he was she could not see how he controlled her, how he dragged her down and stripped her of all her confidence now she can and she is so angry with herself :(

and physical abuse follows emotional abuse that is not to say it will always go on to be physical but not many will stay around someone who is physically harming them if they have not been made to feel they are in the wrong, they are worthless, they deserved it it?s just another way of controlling someone

it needs to be recognised that emotional abuse can be very damaging not only to a partner but to children too

With that definition I am pretty sure that everyone has committed DV at some point. What matters is the degree with which it happens and the frequency.

rumble is right, and I agree its to do with the degree and frequency. Emotional abuse is much harder to define I think that physical as its easier to see the effects of physical violence i.e broken bones, bruises etc where its not so easy to see long term effects of emotional abuse which can be just as damaging, if not more so such as low self-esteem, feelings of worthlessness and lack of control over lifes.

They coud have added a couple of words to the definition of EA like 'sustained' or 'prolonged' or something.

To have such a vague and wishy washy definition does no one any favours, because it is open to abuse itself and could be used against someone who has actually been treated worse. It makes a mockery of the law if it's not clear.

Onemorechap

Why this

"Surely grist to the MRA mill?"

there is no mention of gender in the definition at all.

Oh dear, DH and I fall foul of that definition every time we have a row

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 25-Aug-12 10:58:42
Why this

"Surely grist to the MRA mill?"

there is no mention of gender in the definition at all.

Actually, there's specific mention that it applies irrespective of gender or sexuality.

I think it's an issue because it poses some sort of equivalence, which I genuinely don't see. My XW was cruel, and no doubt "emotionally abusive" to me.

Suggesting that - in any way - this has similar impact to some twat knocking his wife/partner about on a Saturday night when he gets in from the pub/whatever is just... wrong.

As a kid I learned "hitting girls is wrong" [to be fair, I was also told that in many ways the best way of dealing with a physical bully is give them a good hard smack]. This sounds like "If that little girl's nasty to you, it's just like you punching her"

I'd say it was being horrible to somebody else without good reason and over a period of time and resulting in that person becoming upset.

kim147

I do think you have been a bit vague with your definition of emotional abuse.

Quite possible; I didn't really understand it and googled it

The DV definition I spotted in the thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parenting/a1546160-Changes-to-child-maintenance-system-looking-for-Mumsnetters-responses-to-a-government-consultation

in RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 22-Aug-12 14:04:11 post

You added later
But long term emotional abuse is to be taken seriously.

I agree; no problem; but I don't see it as DV - which I completely regard as threat of, or actual, physical assault.

Emotional abuse

When you work with both perpetrators and victims (which i do), you spot it straight away, usually observations,but i can easily spot a pattern when doing assessments. It is very sad to see toddlers already suffering from the effect of EA.

They coud have added a couple of words to the definition of EA like 'sustained' or 'prolonged'

Everyone's time scales are different.

I think that in the case of children, prolonged shouldn't come into it, especially if inflicted by a new partner, it should't happen at all and that needs to be the message.

However, if it is happening at the start of a new relationship, even in small doses, that is a red flag, usually of worse to come.

The Home Office's definition is just one, that is used to shape policies of statutory services and this is something that has to be decided on an individual basis, tbh.

The HM definition should be detailed and not use words like sustained, as otherwise the definition would be to broad to interpretate without missing EA.

but I don't see it as DV

I actually like the US term of Domestic Abuse.

To apply that in the UK, would mean change in law, which will come in time, but guidelines for statutory workers are braoding it as DA.

I see people who are 'shells' through EA, starting in childhood and carrying on in their relationships, they then think this is the norm and allow their children to suffer.

I'd say it was being horrible to somebody else without good reason and over a period of time and resulting in that person becoming upset.

That is minimising it, EA cause psychological problems, which can lead to psychiatric conditions.

OneMoreChap

Would you say that a man can be emotionally abusive to his wife?
I think (and I apologise if I am wrong) that you consider the emotional abuse of males to be just a nagging wife.

"This sounds like "If that little girl's nasty to you, it's just like you punching her""
So if the girl was "nasty" to the boy over a period of time and the boy was scared of the girl, wouldn't go near her, ran away from her, when the parents wanted to go around for a chat the boy burst in to tears and didn't want to go. You wouldn't consider the boy to have been bullied (emotionally abused) by the girl?

EA and DV are two separate things that can happen together, one is physical the other is psychological, both leave scars but only the physical ones are immediately apparent.

Emotional abuse can be absolutely crippling - but it's often "invisible" to the outer world. Doesn't make it any less horrible for the sufferer.

I agree that many couples will have fallen foul of that definition at some point - but as rumble said, it's the amount and duration of it that makes the difference. Daily EA is so destructive; the occasional verbal lash-out in a row, less so.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 25-Aug-12 11:24:03

Thanks for that reply, some really good points in there.
I think (and I apologise if I am wrong) that you consider the emotional abuse of males to be just a nagging wife.

First,just ? No, constant belittling, not being good enough, being adversely compared to previous partners in all respects, withdrawal of contact, ignoring [not speaking at all for weeks], trying to prevent family visits and so on.., is a tad more than "nagging". I think EA can come in lots of contexts.

So if the girl was "nasty" to the boy over a period of time and the boy was scared of the girl, wouldn't go near her, ran away from her, when the parents wanted to go around for a chat the boy burst in to tears and didn't want to go. You wouldn't consider the boy to have been bullied (emotionally abused) by the girl?

Certainly, of course I would. But not physically bullied, which is the criteria for a good hard smack. [And again, I was always told "in the face" so people know he's been punched by somebody]

EA and DV are two separate things that can happen together, one is physical the other is psychological, both leave scars but only the physical ones are immediately apparent.

Completely agree, in all respects. Which is why I think concatenating them is bad. As Birdsgottafly said
I actually like the US term of Domestic Abuse.

To apply that in the UK, would mean change in law, which will come in time, but guidelines for statutory workers are [branding] it as DA.

Is the problem then

that you rarely get DV without EA and as DV is "more obvious" they get put together.

But you can get EA without DV.

So EA should have a separate Government definition?