to wonder if contact is always in the best interests of the child

[paddleduck]

Before I start I should say, I have no first hand experience, obviously do not know these people personally and accept my opinion may be unreasonable given the above.

Yesterday I took my dc to a soft play with some friends. While there a set of grandparents came in, closely followed by a couple and another boy of school age. The grandad was carrying a little girl of about 3 or 4 who was hysterical. She looked petrified and was clinging to her grandpa with white hands. She couldn't breathe for her sobs and she was drenched in her own tears. She just kept screaming 'I want to go home' 'no no no' and whenever the man from the couple approaches her, she begins screaming 'no please.. go away.. Don't want you!'

I found it so difficult to listen to her sobs, it really made my heart ache for her. Her grandparents kept cuddling her and talking softly, periodically trying to put her down and encourage her to engage with this couple. The woman part of said couple just kept standing around with her hands in her pockets rolling her eyes and huffing, man kept doing silly faces etc trying to engage little girl.

Any who, my friend visits this softplay weekly and said she'd explain when we left.

Friend explains that it is 'contact' .. The man is her dad. Woman is new wife and school child is new wife's son from previous relationship. Older couple are paternal grandparents. Dad was violent and hurt the little girls mum, so they have split and grandparents meet with the dad for supervised contact weekly. She says this softplay scenario happens every week for around 8 months now, with the little girl being distraught at every visit. - she knows this because the mother of the little girl is her aunties life long friend.

I found the whole thing so upsetting to watch and haven't stopped thinking of that little girl. The more I consider the situation the more I feel that after so long of these awful contact sessions, it would be in the child's best interests for the dad to leave her alone. To remain contactable for when she is older, if she wants to.. but that if a child finds being in your presence that distressing then that's not good to keep putting g her through that. I understand how difficult that would be as a parent. . But I almost felt it was selfish of him to keep pushing her like that. Long term she will anticipate the meetings with anxiety and they may never make progress like this? Of course he could have just not been a violent partner in the first place and my disgust over knowing what he's done makes me want to say he doesn't deserve access.. but if he's getting it someone obviously deems him not a risk to the little girl right? And presumably he has PR

Anyway. . Am I bu to think he should walk away?

I'm unsure how much contact there is so it's possible there is a secondary meet elsewhere in the week buy friend says they are there every Wednesday without fail.

i ended up chatting to a little girl once at a soft play centre she looked miserable i asked if she was okay (lost your parents that sort of thing she really did look heart-wrenchingly sad) she said no im waiting with my worker for my mom then she told me she hated her mummy because she bunches me lots ive got a bruise look and boy did she ever but according to her worker who came over to cheer her up mummy will be here soon and dont worry you will soon be living with her again wont that be nice! (i want daddy) nope we talked about this mummy's house is best for you poor kid just looked at me and went to play tears rolling down her face made me feel like crap to be honest nothing you can do about it though

The courts will know more of the story than you. If contact was detrimental they would change it. The mother in question may say things against the father causing the reaction, nobody knows!

I don't think contact should be stopped in this circumstance. The child is safe and will adjust with time. Imagine if every NRP stopped seeing their children if they were upset for a period of time!

I agree that contact is not always in a child's best interest.

My parents split when I was seven, and although my dad had been violent towards my mom (which I wasn't aware of till I was an adult) she never discouraged contact. I used to love going to see my dad, but if I told you all the dangerous and irresponsible activities you would not believe me. Me and my brother kept a lot of what happened secret so my dad wouldn't get into trouble. Then my dad started drinking, and weekend visits were spent in his friends pub, where we were given alcopops to drink.

After that I didn't always want to go to see him, and my mom didn't make me. When I was 10 my dad just stopped coming to pick us up and answering our phone calls. A few years later, he turned up at my birthday party but me and my brother refused to see him.

I am so grateful that contact was not forced. I do not want anything to do with a violent, alcoholic criminal who has no regard for the wellbeing of his children.

they fight for some custody to spite the RP. It's too easy for them to get it.

I think in some situations it can be like a never ending cycle. NRP gets contact for whatever reason (hopefully for the child not to spite RP), for whatever reason RP doesn't adhere to it (hopefully for genuine reason not to spite NRP NRP goes back to court and so it continues.

That's what's happening to my friend hilly, but her ds has sexual abuse thrown into the mix. Courts are ignoring evidence, to placate the dad. He even has a criminal record fir domestic abuse which courts and cafcass are ignoring.

Many, many, many men are violent towards their partners- this on its own isn't a good enough reason to stop contact

Oh yes it is. I say this as someone who grew up with a father who was extremely violent towards my mother but not towards me. It still messed me up massively. As a parent I can't imagine having to hand my child over to someone I knew to be violent.

There is always someone on these threads who pops up to say that violent women exist This has been debated many times on MN so the stats from different studies are here if you want to see them. More men are violent towards women than the other way round; women often do not report/consider themselves victims of dv because they think it's their fault, they provoked him, he really loves them and just lost his temper because of stress, etc, and that's why he hit them. So in fact the stats do not reflect the full scale of the problem. Piping up to say 'well women are violent too' is a way to miss the point.

I agree with posters saying that a violent man is not a good father. If he beats you up, if he beats ANYBODY up, that is harmful to the children too. I think many women feel stuck. Unfortunately that is the man who fathered their dc and they just feel stuck. They made a mistake, chose the wrong man, and now the dc have to pay. Very sad.

Anyone saying that the courts wouldn't order contact if it wasn't in the child's best interests.

I'm sorry but they would and they do.

Also just to play devils advocate.

There are parents, I'll say parents as opposed to fathers, who will go to great lengths to maintain contact with their children, not because they give two hoots about the children, but because it is the only thing that they have left to frighten and control their ex partners after they've fled DV.

Pyjama that is what is happening to my friend

Contact is not in the best interest of her ds, he abuses him emotionally and sexually, but tge court orders it none the less. sS and the police are rubbish and have let them down badly

The courts might not even be involved in this one. Supervised contact isn't just a court ordered thing.

Contact for whose benefit, it certainly is not for my friends ds. Going from a loving safe environment, to an abusive volatile one, every week she has to pick up the pieces and start again until tge next contact. Op if she breaches contact, she could go to prison or residency reversed how disgusting

Courts do not exist to nurture children and forge them into well-adjusted people with a healthy self-esteem who will live meaningful and productive lives. Courts exist purely to determine rights between the disputing parties as prescribed by law and supported by the admissible evidence which is available. That's all. Courts require proof and evidence, and unfortunately sometimes you might not have proof of what you're saying even if you KNOW it to be true. Anyone who thinks the courts will do what's best for their child is just deluded. Law doesn't work that way unfortunately.

You can see the look in your child's eyes, but good luck getting a court to refuse contact on the basis of what you can see in your child's eyes. So yes, unfortunately many dc do end up in dangerous and harmful situations supported by court orders.

There were some stats somewhere, think it was on the Women's Aid website, about how many children ending up bring killed during enforced contact with a violent parent.

this is worth a read, might dispel some myths.

Thank you pyjama for posting that link.

Lots of studies there to back up what people should know anyway from just opening their eyes and seeing what's going on. I will never understand women who think violence to them is not harmful to children or who trust judges to look after their dc.

this is also worth a read.

The issue here is long-term vs short-term benefits.

Stopping contact now would undoubtedly be in the DDs short term interests. She wouldn't be subject to a situation that causes her distress on a regular basis.

But, she also wouldn't have the opportunity to safely develop a relationship with her father. That is well documented to be detrimental to a child's long term welfare and development.
There is also the consideration that should anything happen to the child's mother, then (assuming Dad has PR) he will be expected/encouraged to become a part of his DDs life, possibly with a view to becoming her F/T carer - a history of DV would not preclude that. So, potentially, if this little girl lost her Mum suddenly, her grief would be accompanied by the emotions of reintroducing her "dad" into her life. So short term befit now could actually create a more distressing situation later in life.

Courts tend to look at short-term benefits once a child is articulate - so in a year or two, once this little girl is at school, her mum could stop contact and if the dad applied to court, the child's views would be sought and considered.

Thanks for the links. I wish there was a sticky about dv and child abuse statistics on MN because this topic comes up all the time with the same myths being trotted out.

But, she also wouldn't have the opportunity to safely develop a relationship with her father. That is well documented to be detrimental to a child's long term welfare and development.

Assuming the father is not violent or abusive. It's simple. Contact is always in the best interests of the child if the father is not causing harm to the child. That goes for the mother too, or any other relative who wants contact. The only issue is whether that person is doing harm to the child.

So do I, worst thing is it's always women dolling out the myths.

With you on that pyjama. It's never a man who pipes up here saying that some women are evil too. It's always a woman.

Assuming the father is not violent or abusive. It's simple. Contact is always in the best interests of the child if the father is not causing harm to the child.

Indirect/Supervised contact has the sole purpose of preventing the perpetration of violence or abuse towards the child.

The father was not abusive or violent during the contact the OP witnessed - therefore, at that point, he was not causing the child harm.

I accept that he may have done in the past, but my understanding of the documented research is that long-term, safe contact is better than no contact. The child the OP saw was safe.