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?

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.

Not sure what you are trying to say... It's pro dominantly a female site!

There is good and bad everywhere and in this type if subject people do project. As I have said. I have been subjected to severe DV.

I am not blind however and can see that things aren't as black as white as all RPs are fantastic and all NRPs are abusive waste of spaces.

he was not causing the child harm

Did we read the same OP? What I read sounded like harm to me. It looked like harm to the OP who witnessed it. It looked like harm to the OP's friend who knows that family and sees this scene played out regularly not just that one time the OP saw it.

I can't believe that anyone would think a man who can rape and beat them, and have that amount of vitriol and anger towards someone they "love", can think they can be a good father.

That's genuinely made me sad.

God there are some shitbags out there.

There's a difference between physically safe and emotionally safe.

When my DD started nursery, she was distraught the way the OP described this little girl was. I do not for one moment believe that the nursery staff were causing her harm.

It took my DD several months to settle - as I worked full time, I am certain that she would have been distraught for a greater total period of time than this child has been, who has, at best, spent no more than 40 supervised hours with her dad in the last 8 months.

The driver/motivation for the contact is not known. Clearly the mum knows it distresses her DD, yet she still exposes her DD to that distress every week; is she not responsible for harming her child, too? Why is she allowing it to happen?
It may be court ordered contact - in which case, neither parent are responsible - is the court abusing this child by ordering contact that causes distress?

Did you not read the links WakeyCakey, YES courts DO order contact that is distressing/abusive to children, guess what, even where the children end up dead.

I mean in this case, pyjama - in this case, based on what the OP has said, you believe the (assuming the contact is court ordered) the courts have got it wrong?
Presumably, that means if it isntcourt ordered then the mother is abusing her child by not refusing contact?

Wakey, I don't get why you're comparing this to a child crying when she starts nursery? I think OP knows that children cry for many reasons and in many contexts. She does not come on MN to start a thread whenever she sees a child crying

I'm dreading contact hearing coming up shortly. Ex has 20 convictions for 41 offences including 4 incidence of dv against myself and his last ex involving his use of a knife and threat to kill her, he said he would tell them it was self defence even though he had locked her in the house and beat her up He was convicted and got a suspended sentance, supervision order, probation and order to attend dv classes. He was so aggressive at time of arrest he had to be subdude by pepper spray to be restrained by police. He still to this day denies he is violent and that his ex has mental health problems!!
He also can understand why men kill their children because of bitches like me. He once tried to chop my fingers off by swinging a meat cleaver at me. He then held a knife to my throat whilst I was holding our baby ds. He becomes aggressive on contact pick ups and handovers in the past and upsets ds. He told ds to hit me but because he said it in jest that's ok he because at least he didn't say go and batter your mum.
He tells ds to steal when on contact visits and when ds tells him no he tells ds that he is no son of his for not doing it. He has slapped ds on contact visits, which ds comes back upset.
I absolutely did stop contact for a year as he was still stalking us, terrorising us still. Ds does not want contact with his father and I am not going to force whatsoever. I don't think it would be in ds best intrest. My ds doesn't deserve his fathers shit even if a court orders that he does, I have family that will take care of him as I'm fully prepared to go to prison if the judge orders unsupervised contact because this man is unhinged and my child won't be safe.

It took my DD several months to settle - as I worked full time, I am certain that she would have been distraught for a greater total period of time than this child has been, who has, at best, spent no more than 40 supervised hours with her dad in the last 8 months.

Was she still distressed when you picked her up? And if you hadn't had to work, would you have carried on taking her to nursery?

In this case nobody can know for sure besides those directly involved.

Sorry I mean in general I think that there are absolutely cases where no contact would be better, safer, offer more stability.

I would like to think that if a mum felt that her child was at risk of harm (physical or emotional) that she would try to protect her children from that. Clearly some don't.

Some mothers think that the child must have contact with the father regardless of the situation. Honestly some threads on MN make me weep when you hear what the father has done and the mother still does everything to make sure that contact continues.

At the same time there are mothers who do everything to frustrate contact just because it's not working out conveniently and the father is very disorganized messing the schedule around. Knowing the difference between abusive and non-abusive situations is the most important thing.

All children need a father, true, but that does not mean that an abusive father is better than none.

If we put the 'gossip' about DV aside (not that DV isn't important, but in terms of the known facts about the situation) then the question is about whether, in the face of a child's distress, contact should continue or the NRP step back.

I just wanted to add my experience - or at least, DH's experience. At about the same age, DSS started to exhibit the same behaviour at handover. Contact had been fraught from the start, and DSS's mum, who has MH issues, had made it clear that she hated contact and DH. The problems started the very next contact after one of her phone rants about what a shit DH was, although this may have been a coincidence. DSS's mum and grandma behaved in a similar way to the GP's described here, lots of cuddling and attention, but also included asking what was wrong, and if DSS wanted to go with Daddy (cue tears and screaming and lots of hysterical 'No, no no'.)

DH continued to go to collect DSS for (court-ordered) contact, often suggesting that if DSS was just handed over and not given a choice, things would be easier, but was told he was evil/abusive/ignoring the child's wishes etc.

Luckily, there was a court hearing scheduled and the judge was absolutely clear - DSS was to be handed over for contact, no 'DH has to convince/cajole' and that DSS was not to given the responsibility for contact happening. DSS's mum was told that if she didn't comply (there were lots of other issues, too) that residence would be given to DH.

Overnight, all problems stopped. Ex just handed DSS over and shut the door. DSS was back to his sunny, normal self, no crying, no hysterics, no hour long attempts at handover.

DSS is now 12 - DH is picking him up tomorrow and we are all going on holiday. DSS is the loveliest, kindest young man, and he loves spending time with his Dad. And yet if DH hadn't had that very robust judge, he might have never had that relationship. Even DSS's mum now admits that DSS has a great time with his Dad.

Balia, you are right, if there is no violence then contact should continue even the child is crying. If there is no violence/abuse there is no issue.

This thread has only wound on because of the violence/abuse element, not just the crying by itself. Crying by itself is similar to the nursery situation experienced by many parents, or even school - lots of children cry and are very distressed by starting school.

If my child was reacting like this every week and I knew about it I would stop contact. Absolutely.

All other arguments aside, why can't they try contact somewhere else?, how on earth is soft play a good place to try and nurture a bond between parent and child? The child should have contct with her father, but obviously it needs a change of approach....

A close friend had her children removed to foster care due to her disabilities making her unable to care for her children adequately.The court set contact at a bowling alley 25 miles and two bus rides away for 90 minutes every 6 weeks, and then wondered why she seemed to have trouble interacting with the children..who both have SEN...when she has epilepsy and cognitive issues post brain surgery...in a noisy bowling alley after the kids had travelled 20 miles to get there after a long day at school...

Children should have contact with their parents, but for God's sake it should be sensible!

Where should parents do contact? There aren't a lot of options beyond mcdonalds, the park and a soft play where I am either (not that I have to do contact). I'd be curious as to where people could go.

Wakey, I don't get why you're comparing this to a child crying when she starts nursery? I think OP knows that children cry for many reasons and in many contexts. She does not come on MN to start a thread whenever she sees a child crying

Because you were using the child's distress as evidence if abuse/harm.

The OP witnessed a distressed child, not an abused one.

You stated that the child's distress was evidence of abuse/harm.

Yes, the child's distress could easily be alleviated by not continuing to pursue contact. But that decision should be made with consideration for the long term implications - including what happens if the child ends up in the f/t care of a previously estranged parent.

Dad was violent and hurt the little girls mum

Wakey, that's from the OP, that's the evidence of abuse. Not the crying/distress. That's why people are debating whether hurting the mum is reason to stop contact - nothing to do with the crying by itself.

kawliga I was responding to your point that what the OP witnessed was harmful and abusive to the child. What she witnessed was a distressed child -not an abused one.

Well Wakey, I disagree. I think violence to the mother counts as 'abuse'.

I agree with you entirely; it is abusive for children to see/hear DV between their parents.

But the OP did not witness the mother being abused by the father. She witnessed a child who was safe, in the care of grandparents, all be distressed.

Contact is deemed to be beneficial to the child in the long term when it is safe for the child. The child the OP saw was safe.

we must be reading two different OPs. In the OP which I read there was more to the story, i.e. somebody else there, another witness, knew more about the situation. The OP is not going only on what she witnessed herself. Otherwise she'd have to come on here every time she sees children crying.

As I've said, my understanding is that it is considered best for a child to have "safe" contact with a parent than no contact at all.

If a parent has been violent and abusive in the past, or is indeed, still violent and abusive towards others, that does not preclude the child from having "safe" contact with that parent.
This is what supervised contact achieves. It ensures the child remains safe from abuse and harm during contact.

From the OPs description, it is clear that either a court, or the child's parents, believe that supervised contact is better for this child than no contact.

If a parent has been violent and abusive in the past, or is indeed, still violent and abusive towards others, that does not preclude the child from having "safe" contact with that parent

I disagree completely and utterly. So do many posters on this thread. That's what the debate is about.

Some parents (like you) think this is possible and other parents (like me) think this is impossible and would do everything in their power to keep their dc away from contact with a violent and abusive man.