To think that even in the 1970s, social services should have been involved?

[KickAssAngel]

DH comes from a family that I think was deeply toxic. He, of course, minimizes and normalizes a lot of this. From what I know, it's clear that there was considerable verbal and emotional abuse. When he was 18, in the last year of 6th form, a friend's parents sat him down and offered him a home with them, because they thought things were so bad.

there are some things that happened that make me astonished that social services weren't involved. He thinks I'm exaggerating, and that's just how things were back then. So, I'm wondering what other people think? DH would hate to discuss this with friends in RL, but am I being a drama lama? I know it makes no difference now, but I'd just like to get things straight in my own head.

DH's mum re-married when he was about 6. His Step-dad had a daughter who was 12-ish. This step sister lived with them full time as her mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

1. When the parents married, step-sis became the main carer for DH. St-sis would pick him up from school, walk home, give him dinner, supervise homework & get him ready for bed. At weekends they were almost always left alone for at least 12 hours a day as the parents were building a house several miles away, so the children were left home alone except for overnight.
2. After one day out, the family returned home to find it had been broken into. Step-sis's mother had broken in, and committed suicide in the bath.
3. A couple of years after that incident, step sis had major problems with anorexia. DH's memory is hazy, but he thinks she was in hospital for several months. I think she was around age 16 by then.

I think that 1. would probably fly under the radar, unless someone made a complaint, but that either 2 or 3 would trigger some SS involvement, and that both together must have alerted someone.

I mean, the police and hospitals were involved.

MIL is an accomplished lier. I've heard some amazing things from her that I know aren't true, and other family have said the same. FIL passed away several years ago. MIL no longer speaks to, or even acknowledges the existence of, any other family. Step-sis was cut off decades ago. So I don't have any other details, just DH's hazy memory from his childhood.

So - would SS have got involved back in the 1970s, or did MIL & FIL lie/conceal things?

Dumbo I'm so with you on this.
I hope and wish for you that you no longer feel worthless, it wasn't your fault, or about you. Sometimes we have to settle for accepting that logically even if we can't emotionally accept it

Kick Ass yes you are very naive and at risk of causing more damage to your dh if you can't accept that.
The world has changed hugely and many of us have had to hide our childhoods with the popularity of ideas that the abused become the next generations abusers.

If a ss visit was made to the parents, or if a police officer spoke to them. The children may not have been involved and your dh not aware.

I imagine now. They would get offered some help. But it isnt a magic pill.

Every generation is shocked by things that were ok in the previous generation. Thats life.

I think you need to drop the subject with your dh op. In the nicest possible way you need to get over the idea that it's up to you to delve into his childhood and talk about should haves, or to debate how he should feel about it now. If and when he wants to discuss how bad it was then you just need to listen.

I know mine was bad, and sometimes I might want to talk about it, or share something. But most of the time I actively blank it out, and at those times I really wouldn't appreciate someone else wanting to discuss how bad it was and how in hindsight it should have been dealt with. And it's a bit patronising, and demonstrates a huge lack of awareness of the real long term issues to assume 'should haves' will help.

Most of us by adulthood are more than aware of those should haves, it's coping with the after effects of them not happening that is the hard part.

YY to what Lurked said too, leave your DH to his own memories and/or sense of how his childhood was. If he wants to raise something fine, but I don't think it is for you to highlight the bad bits!

I imagine now. They would get offered some help. But it isnt a magic pill.

exactly, it is possible that someone who has just lost a parent will be on the SEN register, offered counselling, etc, but basically it is a tick box exercise, paying lip service to the idea of emotional support and EQ etc, when in fact it is likely to be useless, timewasting or actively harmful.

btw - I deliberately don't talk about this with DH unless it's relevant for some reason. I'm trying to sort out things for my own understanding, not to alter his perception of it. But, we have a daughter who is now the age that step-sis was when all the problems started. I have grave concerns about how MIL behaves towards DD. Without upsetting DH I don't want to make DD vulnerable, so I'd like to understand more. As I said, the start of the school year, and the annual talk about child safe-guarding, has reminded me (again) of just how carefully we have to navigate our relationship with MIL.

I am certainly not trying to force DH into some kind of victim role or even to discuss this unless he wants to. Inevitably, though, there are times when this has been talked about. He seems to think his childhood was almost normal, that's just how the 70s were. As a teacher I'm taught that many of the things from his childhood would be flagged up. So, I'm trying to find that middle ground. He still wants a relationship with his mother and I have no intention of stopping that, but I'm also concerned that he's trying to sweep some things under the rug. but then my family were so very different that it's hard for either one of us to have a good perspective.

Anyway, some outside views have helped. Incidentally, my parents were huge fans of Esther Rantzen. Its more than possible that I'm remembering things from the 80s, and assuming that it must have been like that for all of my childhood.

Op you said your parents smacked you. That would be enougg to warrant ss involvment. But it didnt happen to you either. And in the 70s, it eouldnt have done either.

You dont need to reconcile anything. If you were older, your kids would have been going to school alone from a young age. Being left on their own etc. Because tgat was normal. It was normal to sweep a trauma under the carpet. It was normal for issues such an anorexia to be treat with a hospital stay where they fed them up.

But then it was normal for single oregnant women to give up their babies. My aunt eas under pressure to do it. Luckily my grandparents wouldnt hear of it. But did consider prentending the baby was theirs because of the impact on my aunts image.

My dad grew up in the 60s in a seaside village. At weekends and school holidays he would have been expected to to get up, have breakfast then spend all day out and not under his mums feet. From 5 or 6. He would be out 8am to 8pm and come home for dinner. No lunch or they would steal carrots and turnips from alocal alitment and eat them raw. They would play on beach and sea even though none of them could swim. Not surprisingly 2 of his friends never made it to adulthood. There was no involvment from any outside sources.

In this village its what everyone did. Dad feels his childhood was happy, but also knows there was some neglect. He never let us do those things either. Because by the late 80s things were different. And he would be horrfied if i let my kids do this stuff.

Things were different and something will have been bettee. But alot wont have been. We progress, we change thats how society works.

After the trauma yiur step sister could have had all the help in the world and still ended up with anorexia. It was unusal to shun people with mental health issues either in the 70s. I find it horrifying. But know it was a different time.

My mum was commited in the 80s. Dad wasnt offered help then. Things are different today than the 70s, 80s, 90s etc.