To think that men who are violent to their children's mothers should forfeit the right to the child?

[Butamiunreasonable]

Somebody I know vaguely through somebody else has just come out of prison for savagely attacking the mother of his then-toddler daughter, not one week after being released he's playing father of the year on social media with their daughter.

(Mother is no longer with him I must add)

I'm prepared to be told I'm being unreasonable but I just don't see how any man who has it in him to attack women at all, let alone the mother of their child, can be considered a good role model or somebody worth having in a child's life.

I appreciate the family courts don't agree with my stance (unfortunately) but AIBU?

Maybe my own experience is clouding my judgement but I’ve not known of an abusive man (I mean the type of abuse that means his victim ends up in a refuge to escape or similar) who wants contact because he is a good committed father who cares about his children. It’s a power/control thing. It’s a way to keep some kind of contact, any kind with their ex.

My ex spent a fortune (according to him apparently) dragging me through court so he could have unsupervised contact. He’s got it now and he doesn’t give a shit. Does fuck all with our kids, ignores them when he does have them mostly and complains to them what a bitch I am. And he’s one of the ones who is to be commended because he still physically sees them. I know of many, many more who stopped bothering to try when their games didn’t work in court.

How can it be good for a child to have contact with someone who violently attacked their mother?

I’m sure I read that the best thing a father can do for his kids, is to adore their mother?

I agree.

I don't think that violent men should have unsupervised contact with children. Where the nature of the violence is extreme (like the attack that you describe against the child's mother where she thought she would die) then yes I do think that those men should lose their parental rights. Whilst children have a right to a relationship with their parents, I also think that women who have suffered extreme violence deserve to not have their attacker involved in their life or that of their children. I don't think that a relationship with that kind of man is in a child's best interests anyway. There's also the risk of a violent ex partner hurting or killing the child in order to hurt the mother.

I agree with you OP. Apart from anything else how can you trust someone who has been violent with a child? They should not be allowed unsupervised access

You are sooooo NBU leave the bastards in prison where they belong.

Totally @WhatsInAName19
I’d love for a mumsnet webchat to discuss this topic and the reasoning behind the laws that are totally inadequate in protecting women and children.
I’m fucking sick of it.
Who is the government/legal big wig in such matters? Why are we being forced to accept this ?

@Teacakeandalatte sadly they rarely even get taken to court, never mind prison.

I have been told off by cafcass for discussing the freedom programme with my teen DD - who not only witnessed but tried to stop my ex from attacking me - because it biased her against her father.

I have done everything possible to protect my DC but the deck is stacked against me and he will get supervised access with the younger DC at least, with the view to setting up unsupervised visits arranged between the two of us in future.

I will be forced to communicate and cooperate with my abuser for another decade or more,.if he can be arsed to stick around. He probably will, because he is a.sneaky, slimy fuck who enjoys twisting the knife on me, laughing.

I believe that a huge number of children who have witnessed domestic violence are left with deep rooted psychological problems. My friends and loved ones would laugh at the idea that I’d be intimidated by anyone. My lovely DH, on the other hand, knows enough not to raise his voice at me when we row because it terrifies me.

I’m all for not punishing a child for the actions of the parent if it’s a case of not paying maintenance or affairs etc. When it comes to domestic violence, I think that it’s more important to protect the child, even if they don’t understand that they need protecting at the time. A person who is violent to their partner can NEVER be a good parent, no matter how nice they are to the child.

@meltedeggmum2 that makes me sick the system is screwed up and supports abusers while punishing victims, disgusting.

Yes, I agree, OP. There are a lot of cases where a child would be better off not seeing the abusive parent.

I was the victim of an attack by my ex. It was in the throes of separation. He hit me, smashed the house up (the bannister is still snapped where he grabbed it) and held a knife to me. This was 11 years ago now.

I called the police. He was arrested. He admitted it and was given a caution.

I have 100% forgiven him. He had never shown a single ounce of aggression prior. And never since. It truly was a moment of loss of control in the worst kind of way.

He has a good relationship with our son. Son is now 17. I don't regret letting my son go to him.

So really, I don't think it is clear cut in every case. You can't really say "all violent men".

My partner was attacked by his ex. Whilst he was holding their 9 month old baby. He still has scars from her nails ripping in to him. For her it was about keeping control of what she thinks is her possession. It always has been and always will be. She wasn't denied contact - he was. He had to jump through family court hoops because as the primary carer through virtue of giving birth - she held all the cards. Even as the violent person.

@thegullfromhull I would love to see these abusers in prison for life and the only loss to society would be paying for their incarceration.

@Teacakeandlatte
Me too

I had a friend from school whose mother physically abused her. When freind died leaving young children her mother looked after her kids. Was this right. Well she was off the grog which was making her violent so maybe.
And violence in a relationship is sometimes two sided. (not always.). What about mums who go back to a violent relationship should they also loose contact as they are failing to protect their children?

I know more than one mother who has lost custody of her children because she’s got back into a relationship with her abuser. The children have all ended up in care. I don’t think any of them got their children back in the end to my knowledge. It’s fucking tragic for everyone even if it is the right decision.

Sorry but I’m going to disagree and say yabu just because a parent has been or is a shitty partner doesn’t mean they are or will be a shitty parent... I’ll explain my reasoning, I was mentally and emotionally abused by my now ex partner throughout our whole 2 year relationship and one day I snapped and physically assaulted him (held my hands up and accepted accountability) any way we have a child together who resides with dad but I have access with and I’d never hurt my child or damage their health or wellbeing.

From what I gather if there is DV in a home with children then Social Series would step in and I assume the mother would be seen as neglecting her children if she aloud this abuse to continue for example staying with the abuser, but if she removed the abuser from her home to protect her children she is then in a position where she isn't present to protect the children while he has them alone. Terrible position to be in especially if he has a short temper and the children are young and having tantrums etc. I don't think there's a one size fits all answer but mothers should be able to do everything in their power to protect them if they feel they are at risk from harm.
Supervised contact at least in the short term, in some cases especially if the man has shown aggression towards the children or a future partner they may be around. It also depends on the level of violence if we're talking one off out of character that could be different but each case needs individual assessment.

I agree but obviously the legal system doesn’t. I’m not really sure how it is in the child’s best interest to be around someone capable of extreme violence. I’d assume such a person would fail a DBS to work around children but their own children don’t get the same protection.

I've heard that the main reason this doesn't happen is that it would affect too many families - which is an appalling reason! Even if it just started with men who have actually served time it would be something. But the number of contact centres in the UK would have to massively increase if it was made automatic.

@BertieBotts yes my dad was told the same by someone he works with who used to be very senior in Cafcass but left because he was so appalled at the direction it was taking.

The husband of someone I know sexually abused 2 of the children. He went to jail for it. Now he is out, the social workers have said that if he wants contact with the children, he must get it, and it would be in a contact centre and he would be alone in a room with the children while he was watched through a window. His wants are apparently more important that the children's safety. Fortunately for my friend, he doesn't appear to want to see his kids. I think if there has been violence, then the woman should be able to veto the man seeing the kids.

I’d assume such a person would fail a DBS to work around children but their own children don’t get the same protection

Well that has always been the case hasn't it, ever since CRB checks as they then were, were introduced. I have a child, they go to school, they were no checks on me, but if I then eg wanted to go on a school trip or listen to reading, despite being supervised by the teacher, I needed a CRB check. It doesn't make sense. But I suppose the alternative would be to impose abortion on women who either have a criminal record themselves or their partner does, and you can't do that. Also, what sort of criminal record is bad enough? You see plenty of people on here saying that if you were done for shoplifting you aren't fit to be a teacher - utter nonsense.

But to get back to the thread, it really should depend on the views of the mother. If you feel genuinely terrified at having to have contact with your ex it should be facilitated in another way. Why are you being forced to have contact? If a court says he must have contact, the court should require social services to put measures in place to ensure the mother doesn't have to see him.

I don't think it's an issue for older children as the decision should be theirs and theirs alone. Once you are 12 or over you know if you want to see a parent or not. In fact I'd set it at about 8, but realise some people might think that's too young.

I know more than one mother who has lost custody of her children because she’s got back into a relationship with her abuser. The children have all ended up in care.

This is what seems really unfair and shit about the whole thing. How can a mother lose custody because she's wih an abuser, at the same time as abusers are allowed contact with their children? It doesn't add up. Why do we deem mothers unfit for risk of harm (esp. forced adoption at birth) but not fathers when they've shown actual violent tendencies?