Father in law and physical abuse, Aibu?

[Nord]

FIL was a violent man and physically abusive towards DH as a child.

He was also emotionally abusive towards DH's mother. She subsequently left him, had a breakdown and neglected DH and his siblings.

DH is now close to his mother and siblings. His father found God and has worked hard to become a better person apparently. DH and him speak and see each other. I've met FIL a few times but he and his wife live far away from us.

DH had been really suffering with his mental health lately due to the past and the more he tells me the more furious I get at FIL.

Aibu to refuse to see FIL or let my DC see him? DH had seemingly forgiven him.

I wouldn't see him at all, and certainly not at Christmas - that's a terrible idea. It will probably ruin Christmas for you all.

I think you need to support your DH in his journey and let him make decisions at his own pace about whether to be in contact with his father. However, that doesn't mean that you have to see him yourself or let him see your children.

Thanks Larry (great name, I love Veggie Tales). It was just a suggestion. I had thought ptsd was something that could affect survivors of abuse too. So it was very much a suggestion not based on experience or medical knowledge. Which book?

Thanks Geradine.

OP's husband was the victim of an appalling crime and years later is still suffering the repercussions. Meanwhile, the perpetrator has gotten off scot-free. I'm sure God has forgiven FIL (just as the hapless victim proclaims to have done) but do we as a society really let criminals off that easily?

Italian: Everyone relatively unknown is a risk. I am not saying the OP should leave the kids with him. That's not at issue here. But people are talking as if she is well within her rights to treat her DH's father as an active threat to her children, and I think that is unreasonable.

Obviously we do

Italian the book is called The Body Keeps the Score, can't remember the author, published by Penguin. Available on Amazon. I have a relative diagnosed with PTSD as a result of abuse by a family member, and the book was recommended by their counsellor.

Trifle all unknown people (strangers) are an unknown quantity. They may be bad or good and we react, and treat our children, to react to them in a suitable way.

This man is not an unknown stranger. He is a man with a known past of abuse. Has he changed? I don't know. Even if he has changed is he automatically entitled to any kind of relationship with the son he abused, the son's wife, and their kid/s? In my book - no!

Any relationship must be one that is beneficial to all, not just to the FIL and his wife.

I think there is a real risk this relationship will bring up past hurts. Just talking about the past hurt with a counsellor has (it appears) upset the OP's dh so much that he has had to stop therapy for the time being.

The 'relationship' between the PP'dh and his father needs to be carefully managed. Allowing children into this relationship is IMHO a very bad idea. Certainly at this very early stage.

What might happen?

Well, worse case scenario the FIL wheedles his way back into his son's life and continues some version of abusive behaviour. This may not be physical abuse but mental or emotional. It may involve denying what really happened or it may invole minimising it, and/or putting pressure on the son to forgive and move on when it is not possible yet.

As the children grow they may become attached to grandfather, will they be told about the past or will it become a family secret?

The OP has every right to express concern for her children, her dh and herself. As adults her and her dh CAN and I hope WILL make their own choices. Choices made on behalf of the children must be in the children's best interests.

With the greatest respect a man so traumatised by his own past he cannot really talk about it in therapy is not in a position to make wise choices for his kids in relation to this and the OP must step in and make those choices. This is NOT about a grandparent's right to see their grand kids or a parents right to introduce their children to their parent.

IMHO it is about damage limitation and the repair of a fractured person and for this professional therapeutic advice should be saught. We unknown people on the internet cannot really know all the facts.

OP please seek advice from a therapist before proceeding and please know your fears are valid!

I'm not saying this is something I'd want to do. But it has to be their decision, not hers.

What I meant with this is that she and DH have to make this decision.

Saying that DH's opinion doesn't count because he's still dealing with the abuse is taking away his agency and incredibly wrong.
2 parent, 2 people making a decision.

I think this situation is horrible and I don't think that this should be unsupervised (by the DM and an other adult who isn't FIL's wife). Doing it in a restaurant or a park is probably a good idea as well.

But I firmly believe that both parents should make this decision and that the OP shouldn't say categorically not to FIL seeing the LO.

And yes, I think the OP and her husband taking about this with a therapist would probably be the best.

Both parents have equal rights when making this decision.
That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying I personally think they should (or shouldn't) see him. I'm saying that both of them (the OP and DH) have to make this decision.
Dnd yes, that's probably going to be difficult but that's how I see it.

Denying DH his status as an equal, as a parent, by saying that his opinion about this doesn't count is actually using his past against him in an incredibly despicable way.

I think a person with a history of abusive behaviour who has long stopped that behaviour should be regarded with healthy caution, but not treated as a known risk. That excludes those who have committed obscene crimes and so on, but generally I think redemption is possible. The OP seems to be massively over-reacting, seeing as she hasn't said even once that she is worried about his behaviour now. She is just angry about the past. The point is it's not her past. It's between her DH and her FIL unless she has any decent reason to be concerned about her children.

Forgiving is not something that you can just "do". It is a process and it can take many years. If you say "I forgive you" and try to act like nothing happened, when inside the pain is as real and as terrible as ever, you re just letting the other person off the hook rather than forgiving them and it will eat away at you and destroy you.

Your feelings of anger and dislike for your FIL are valid. They are reasonable in view of the cruelty he has inflicted upon your DH, and they are justified. As another poster said - Cruel people rarely really change - they just put on a mask because it suits them to do so.

You say your DH has forgiven his father: do you think perhaps that inside him is that little boy that he once was, still desperate for daddy's approval - or still too terrified to make daddy angry - and without realising it, he is pushing down his real emotions? I can't believe that inside he isn't a raging torrent of conflicting emotions, many of them violent, and perhaps he is afraid to acknowledge them when he has seen and felt first-hand what violence can do. If so, this could make him very ill - I assume the two of you are able to talk about these things. And does he dream? Since re-connecting with his father has he had any vivid (and more importantly) bad dreams?

Has his father done anything concrete to show that he is truly sorry for what he has done? Or has it just been "I've seen the error of my ways. I was a sinner, but God has forgiven me so you should too. I want to be part of your family and I'm entitled to because I have said sorry".? Call me cynical - I've seen this happen too many times - especially in very evangelical churches where"turning away from sin and embracing the light" means that the person gets lots of positive approval, and can talk about all of the awful things they have done (but no longer do because of Jesus), and become minor celebrities. I'm not saying that they all have ulterior motives, (I know for a fact that many are sincere) but many do. (I speak as a practising Christian with experience of such individuals.)

I don't think YABU to keep your children away from your FIL. If he is truly repentant, and really wants to demonstrate his sorrow, he will give you and your husband as much time as you need to come to terms with his change of heart. He will just allow you to live happily until you feel that you are ready to share your lives with him. He has made the first move - the ball should now be in your court.

Support your husband if he wants to be on good terms with his father, but don't feel that it is your job to make this man feel good about himself by letting him into your children's lives. It may be that he has been such an unpleasant bar-steward that he now has no-one to turn to except his new wife and the church. It may be that his church family have pressured him to make amends. Who knows.

I do know, though, that if you try to pretend everything in the garden is lovely, you will end up a seething mass of resentment - and actually, trying to force forgiveness before it is ready to come makes it harder. If you can truly forgive, though, it makes your life happier and more serene, and it means that when his father dies, neither of you is carrying any baggage about the relationship. But as I said before; it is a process; it takes time; it takes as long as it takes.

Just read Italiangreyhound's excellent post.

The chances of this cruel and abusive man continuing his abuse in another form are huge. And even if all his presence does is remind OP's poor husband of his dreadful childhood, then that, to me, is sufficient reason to limit contact, with both DH and the children. There will be a lot of wounds opening before they can truly heal.

Spunky I am not using his past against him. No parent has the right to force a potentially difficult and emotionally problematic situation on their children against the other parent's wishes without very good reason. I were no good reason here nor do I see the OP's dh bring the main 'actor' on this scenario. The FIL's wife has requested the meeting. Her rights on no way trump the OP's, IMHO.

to me, is sufficient reason to limit contact, with both DH and the children

The OP doesn't have the right to do this. She doesn't have the right to decide these things for DH, she doesn't have the right to use DH's past to take away his agency and control his actions.

DH is an adult and gets to decide whether he wants to have contact. Yes, I think they should talk about this and maybe even go to a therapist together. But the OP doesn't have the right to limit contact between DH and FIL.

As for the children, the OP and DH have to decide that together.

I see no good reason... not were!

Spunky I respect your views, I just do not agree. My dh suggested our dd go skiing at 12 with the school. I said no. Knowing our Dd it would not be a good idea for her (IMHO). My views do not trump my dh generally, nor his trump me! But when in doubt the normal procedure is to do nothing. Dd did not go skiing! If you see what I mean. One can always wait and do a thing later. One cannot go back and in-do it.

2kids2dogs you explain really well what I was trying to convey in terms of sceptism about the religious element - evangelical church upbringing. (Throw in a big dose of waiting for an intervention from "God" that was never going to happen and, well, someone turning to God holds little reassurance.)

OP, your DH is really lucky to have you care enough to be angry on his behalf. I think trust your instincts and caution to take care of your family. I hope this does not overshadow your xmas.

One cannot go back and Re-do it differently. Sorry on phone.cytoplasm city!

OP are you Stoll reading your thread?

Typo city!

Spunky I'm torn. I see your point, and Trifle's, but I think I've probably made some very questionable decisions re DC in my desire for them to have a relationship with their grandparents.

Spunky did you get my point about the skiing. If the positions had been reversed and I had wanted Dd to go and dh not neither would trump the other but the default is not to do the thing that potentially causes a problem.

I'm with Italian

I think the fil and his wife are being unreasonable in making requests/plans when the dh (and op) are clearly not ready or comfortable with seeing them.

Also that there is clear potential for further emotional abuse.

Well, I guess I do think skiing is a bit different than family matters. Although I'm not sure what's wrong with skiing (I mean, I hate it, I was forced to go when I was about 5...). But anyhow, not the place to start a discussion about skiing.

but yes, I obviously respect your right to have this opinion. I simply disagree.

I have a difficult relationship with my mother.

She is really lovely, extremely kind, compassionate, creative... But she does have pretty massive MH issues and is an addict. This has lead to abusive behaviour (not physically), a certain amount of neglect and a sometimes extremely unstable family situation.

If my DH told me my past would give him the right to limit me having contact with her? Or claimed that he'd get to decide if our LO had any contact with her because my past somehow made me unable to be an equal in this discussion? Despite her finally getting the help she needs and making so much progress?
I'd feel as if he was using what I went through to take away my agency and my parental rights.

So, I know that the situation here is a bit different but I genuinely feel like some of the comments here (not yours) were extremely disgusting.

Btw, if the DH doesn't want to see him then yes, I think it's great for the OP to help him deal with this.

But (unless there was a update I missed) the OP's DH didn't actually say anything like that.

If this abusive fil had any sense of repentance he himself would have acknowledged the past, apologised for it, stated his desire to move on (aka victim developing amnesia) and most importantly leaving the ball firmly in his son's court.

Step-MommyDearest would not be making demands or requests, this would come from dh at his own pace, in his own time.

This fil has not changed, he's just enlisted God to cover up for the sins he's perpetuated against his child.

He wants the script to be:
Fil: "I'm religious now"

Everyone else "oh that's all ok then, let's all have a cuppa tea"

He's only got religion to try and make himself feel better, Adopt a mask to further disable and disempower his victims.

"Ah, but he's your dad"
"He's an old man"
"He goes to church to be seen"

Lundy Bancroft in his book Why Does He Do That? States that the likelihood of an abuser reforming and being Not An Abuser is a fraction of a percent.

Abusers are weak and cowardly, they abuse because they are nothing and want to take the power from normal people.

He has only modified his behaviour, because he has no balls to take on an adult.

Op, tell your h that he needs more time before meeting them, and Christmas is an excuse well used by abusers to reel people back in.

It's ok to say he doesn't want to meet. I also worry that his "forgiveness" isn't forgiveness, it's fear that's driving him to suppress it.

Ask him how he'd feel if the meet up was cancelled, his immediate gut reaction? If it's relief, then the "invitation" is to be declined.

His father and his wife can think what they like, they've lost the right to be anything other than understanding