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?

YABU.

What about in cases where there was violence both ways? Forced adoption?

I disagree I’m afraid. Of course the father shouldn’t be allowed access to the child if he’s a risk to the child - any risk at all. However, if he’s no risk to the child then I don’t think it’s suitable to deny him access to his child as a form of punishment, as it won’t be only him who suffers, it will be his child too.

I work in DV. I am with you. Abusive men should not get access to their children.

However, if he’s no risk to the child then I don’t think it’s suitable to deny him access to his child as a form of punishment, as it won’t be only him who suffers, it will be his child too.

As the child of an abusive man forced to have contact with her father, I assure you that I would have suffered a lot less without him.

As pp said, the thing I can't accept is that the mothers are being forced to regularly see and communicate with abusers. Can you imagine any other assault where the victim is court ordered to see the person who tried to kill them? I think those parents can see children in contact centres or not at all. It's unacceptable to put women through this.

Totally agree

@MarmitePaWill it's about the rights of the child not the rights of either parent. Parents have responsibilities not rights in the care of their child.

In the cases mentioned the story is always more complex e.g. the man has a proven history of being an abuser plus maybe other things such as drug addiction, there as the mother has no history.

@ConfusedNoMore unfortunately unless they have family members who are happy to put up with the abuser communicating through them and doing handovers, then they have no choice.

YABU. It’s abusive to the child to harm the mother like that. Children are completely dependent on their parents. Violently attacking one of them (even if not done in front of the child) will have a terrible effect on their mental health.

It’s baffling because the NSPCC “speak out, stay safe” programme that was discussed in my DS’s school classes children who have witnessed (directly or indirectly) domestic abuse against one of their parents as being victims of abuse themselves. Encouraging contact with an abuser seems counter productive for the child.

I agree but can't see it happening. Abusive bastards have their 'rights'.

Do you know that there’s a court order in place? Because I would be very surprised. If he’s been released less than a week ago, when would he have had time to go to court for an order, let alone have the risks assessed?

I agree that unsupervised access should not be allowed.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/07/he-saw-our-children-as-possessions-my-husband-killed-our-sons

This was local to me. One of the boys was at DD's school, and the tragedy hit the community very hard. It was such an awful, awful time. Hopefully Claire's campaign will be successful, and if it prevents even one more violent death then she will have achieved what she set out to do.

I think by abusing a woman, the abuser has already damaged his children one way or another. I can't see how the child continuing contact with a person who has harmed them could be in his/ her best interests.

Generally yes but not all situations are black and white. It's not always the man (family experience) and it's not always one sided. Where is a serious offence then ending parental rights seems the right thing to do but the child's welfare needs to be considered including the impact of not seeing their father- it screwed up my h's life

Abuse against the mother is abuse against the child, end of story. There is no such thing as an abusive husband who is simultaneously a good father.

ColaFreezePop it's about the rights of the child not the rights of either parent. Parents have responsibilities not rights in the care of their child.

Yes, I understand this. Apologies if my wording implied otherwise - I worded it that way as I was referring to an example given in this thread.

The question remains though - if a mother can be deemed potentially abusive even before birth, so it's decided to be in the child's best interest to have no contact, then why on earth is it deemed acceptable for the child to have contact with a father who has actually demonstrated they are abusive?

I can't work out if I'm missing something or it really is a system that doesn't add up!

The situations I find most concerning is where there’s been lower level abuse / violence that has never been prosecuted - these men have nothing on their file, no reason for a court to refuse or place conditions on access and women are staying in these awful situations because they are so terrified of their partner having the child unsupervised.

Of course if there’s been a prosecution for DA then access should be supervised, no question. It’s all those who’d never get a prosecution that I worry even more about.