To think that courts shouldn't give domestic abusers access to children?

[Yuui]

I entirely understand that this is the AIBU section so I might get flamed, but this topic really does bother me.

I know more than one person whose partner seriously physically or sexually abused them and still got given access to their kids. Personally, I just can't see how this is a good idea? I mean, an adult who is happy to beat/rape/ ..etc [insert awful thing here] probably is going to be an unsafe influence on a child, unless there are some incredibly strong mitigating factors. What do the rest of you think about this matter?

Yes I agree. If you have children with a violent person, even if you leave them you face your children having to be around them without you there, which is terrifying.

I have a no direct or indirect court order for my two prohibiting their father. I don't see that as a good outcome either

Its shit but they are the childs dad so they have rights to see them. Howether sick in the head they are. My violent rapist has recently had a child, some lovely pics on FB poor child and mother.

@gardeninggirl68 most abusers are men.

Let's focus on the majority of the scenarios in court and keep using words like mother and woman. They are not Victorian words nor concepts, and they are completely relevant to the context of this thread.

You are free to start a separate thread about abused men, but cannot enforce your views on others.

Yanbu

I know of a convicted paedophile given unsupervised access to his bio daughter the half sister of his 6 year old victim.

Family court judges are wholly biased towards mens rights and do not act in the best interests of the child.

@mumtoone3 I completely agree. A family member of mine was the victim of domestic abuse, including in front of her children. Court upheld contact with a father who had never really shown interest before, but he now uses this to continue hurting the mother, just in different ways. And now the children are older (stroppy teenagers!) he has become physical towards them. Including strangling one so hard that the marks still showed at school the next day. SS told the 13 year old to apologise as he had started it. He had pushed his dad while arguing. Unbelievable, and yet it happened.

Enough4me

I totally agree. The vast majority of abusers are men and its ridiculous whataboutery to suggest otherwise.

Oh and there was no question over the abuse suffered previously, as he was actually convicted of assault. This is on his record but whenever it is mentioned in family court it is brushed under the carpet because, apparently, he apologised for the assault. That is irrelevant in my opinion, but also false. He has actually never even admitted it, even when convicted.

If an ex partner presents a serious risk, has been convicted or charged with an offence and if the other parent flags up concerns, the courts will involve other external multidisciplinary services to get involved with and oversee arrangements be it supervised contact in a centre or day visits / overnight stays.

Courts have to try and balance the fine line of doing what is best for the children, making sure arrangements don't directly affect or place them at risk and they need to be mindful of the all too common issue between couples at war and throwing all sorts of malicious and false allegations back and forth.

The difficulty is where a parent has been abusive towards their partner without it having been formally investigated / substantiated and where children did not suffer any abuse and it was purely towards the victim.

Even harder is that so few victims of abuse report it and fewer still go the distance to try and see through a conviction which in itself is extremely difficult.

No easy solution unfortunately but if someone has genuine concerns about an ex they feel is a real risk to the children, my advice is to go through the proper channels and see what they can help with so the children are still able to have safe, supervised contact and the other parent allowed to see them even if in very restrictive and limited circumstances.

The problem is that once the 'safe supervised contact' starts happening it leads un unsupervised contact eventually. This happened to my friend whose ex partner had threatened to kill their child and who looked like they were Mother Theresa in front of the courts.

He had severely abused the mother for years then realised he could control her through threatening her children. After unsupervised contact had happened he began to emotionally abuse the children. No marks so difficult to prove, both children have been messed up by it . One on drugs the other left home and doesn't stay in touch.

It's easy to say that you should allow 'safe' contact but there is no such thing with abusive people.

Do children really benefit from this contact?

@Jennybeans401 precisely that. The problem is that it can also ruin the child's life by getting them ostracized.

Often the child gets told about the awful thing that their parent did as part of them being allowed contact, and little children aren't that tight-lipped. So before you know it, all their little friends and their little friends parents may know what the other parent did, leading to a lack of inclusion and maybe needing to move house

There is a wider issue I think about how the courts hear so many stories of how (usually) men have reformed (some true, many not), or heard too many sob stories, and so it conditions those making decisions in court. Decisions in favour of the abuser not children, mothers or anyone else affected.

Isn't the problem the proof? So if you have someone who has been prosecuted and found guilty of DV or other violence, that's one thing. But often a woman might leave an abusive partner without charges ever having been pressed and in that case how could access rights be determined on one persons say so??

I went through court for this. Had several police files of reports and pictures of my wounds etc and yet the court basically said I have to instigate contact and have to take them myself. Absolute disgrace. Never felt more failed.

@FedNlanders same here. I have to see my ex every Saturday outside our former marital home because he 'did not feel comfortable' with my parents dropping off the DC. I bet he didn't, he abused their daughter. I didn't feel comfortable when he bit me on the shoulder when I was asleep, or forced me to have sex or gave me a black eye or kicked me so hard he broke my ribs. But there we are. The abusive mens discomfort about being confronted for his own actions by other people comes above my fear. It truly is a mans world. The judge said he could see why ex would be uncomfortable. Couldn't see why I would be uncomfortable, facing the place and person who caused my trauma, though!

@SafeMove it's shocking! I'm so sorry you have to deal with this, the system is broken. If you had been attacked by a stranger that led to those injuries would you still be forced to stay in touch with that individual? It's truly horrifying

I'm being taken to court at the moment for the 2nd time in 3 years by my abusive ex. We've been apart for 7 years and he's always looking for ways to get to me through our DC. His grounds this time is that I'm mentally unstable but with no proof whatsoever the judge has ruled that prior to the court date my ex can have access to all my medical records. There is nothing I can do to prevent this massive violation of my privacy.

One of the times he attacked me when we were together I went to the police. They came to my home, laughed at me (yes, laughed at me while I tried to show them my bruises) and warned me they would report me to SS if I reported my abuser again. At court now he gets to brush aside that report of DV against him by saying I made it up. Nobody has ever questioned him.

The system is broken, and it has broken me. And my children who love him as their dad but don't understand why he does what he does to punish me for leaving.

This is the reality of family court, the system and abusers.

Some men (e.g. Fathers4justice) use 'parental alienation' in court. They accuse the mother of preventing access through bitterness.

It sounds sincere on the surface...she turned my kids against me and it's her fault even if they say they don't want to see me.

I just don't understand because, if an unrelated rapist/assaulter/paedophile wanted access to a child, he'd never get any, yet the moment there's a blood connection his need to see that child seems to take precedence over everyone's safety.

Giving such a person access to a child seems like a good way to train that child to behave in the same way as the abusive parent

Like everything in life, DV is a spectrum, and choosing the most extreme cases doesn't really prove anything.

There might be an argument for someone who was continually abusive, beating and raping his wife, to be precluded from accessing his kids. But then you might have someone who once out of anger shoved his wife (or the other way around), can you really make the case for them not being able to see their kids again?

Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

I'm sorry I think YABU. A child has the right to see both parents and this should always be the case unless the child will be in danger.

The problem is what are you classing as abuse? These days having an argument could be classed as abuse. Why should the word of one parent overide the other?

The biggest issue for children is parental alienation. Most Resident Parents who have the children more than NRP can emotionally abuse their children and blame the NRP.

I would wager that mothers are more emotional abusive to their children and use the children as weapons

@Rebornagain I would wager against you. Most single mothers are left trying to rebuild abandoned DC lives.

I have always facilitated my DC having access to their dad, even when he was still emotionally abusive to me after leaving us for OW. I had solid advice on MN that DC need to make their own minds up wherever possible.

DC best interests must come first and scared mothers need to be listened to, in order to safeguard DC.

@Rebornagain I am saying on occasions where there has been serious physical or sexual abuse

I agree they shouldn't.

Friend of mine was badly abused by her Ex, he continued to see them and had 50/50 at one point. Aged 11 the DC all chose to live with the Ex by the time they were 16, 18 and 20 they'd seen their mum once in 2 years, the Ex turned them against their mother for leaving. She fought through the courts but the courts wouldn't force them once they go to 11.

It breaks her heart. She has had to step away from them completely as they don't want to know her apart from on their birthdays and at Christmas.

Her Ex told them she was a money grabber, left him to try and get money out of him, they lapped up every word. When she told them he hit her and pulled her head to the point it came out, the Ex they were arguing but he never touched her. The DC don't believe their mum despite police records.

And she's not the only woman I've heard similar stories from.

I am terrified ExH will turn DD against me in future, she's showing signs it might happen as well