DBS checks for abuse and domestic violence

[Nursejackie1]

So we have a system where dbs checks are carried out where a person is applying for a job to work with children or vulnerable people. If there is a history of abuse they will not get the job as they rightly should be nowhere near anybody vulnerable.
So why the hell are men who are abusive towards their partners often in full view of the children routinely granted access or even partial or full custody to children after they have proven themselves to be a violent person purely because they donated spend
to the making of the child.
It actually stinks of victim blaming by the courts ie he might do it to you(you must push his buttons) but no reason or evidence he would do It to the kids.
Hmm in every other situation such as job seeking you cannot work with kids if you have a violent history but because you donated a bit of DNA oh and it’s only a specific woman you are beating up the normal rules don’t apply.
A violent person is violent person and I truly believe that access to kids should be withheld in these cases.
On a horrifically huge scale when domestic abuse and kids are involved the abuser will use the kids to punish the mother as we see so sickeningly and heartbreakingly often.
Also the amount of women that stay with abusers so that they can actually be there for the kids rather than the abuser have them alone is horrendous. Another massive chunk of power to hold over the abused woman.
It’s time for massive massive change. The whole system is completely fucked.

*spend was meant to say sperm

The difficulty is that children suffer when they aren’t allowed to see both of their parents. Judging whether the harm of removing the bond with an abusive parent is worse than the risk of allowing them access is hard.

There is no inherent damage from not allowing an abusive person access to children in a school. So it is easier to decide to keep them away from those children.

So a person who is capable of abuse to somebody they are supposed to love but horrificly abuse them often in front of the children should be able to have them because the children have built up a trauma bond?
Of course the separation of what the kids know would be difficult and they would need support… but there must be a better option than leaving them vulnerable and in the hands of a violent abuser

In these circumstances there is suffering to the child what we way. But the question is which path is the least damaging? I’d say keeping them safe, giving them support, and not putting them in the care of a proven violent person and their influences over time would be the far better option

And if we are really honest these decisions are more about the man than the child’s needs

Is it just a trauma bond? It is it a parental bond with complexities and damage?

I struggle with this myself. Deciding where the line is where I will stop ds seeing XH.

Just my opinion but parental bonds should not include damage and major complications. The bar for parents should be raised way higher. . I think that when kids are small they have to witness and be treated in ways they shouldn’t ever have to, as kids grow older it gets so complicated for them and the struggle between loyalty and healthy boundaries must be awful. I personally think they should be rescued from it as soon as it begins and the courts etc are aware. Kids
Should not witness abuse and not be victims of abuse full stop. Quite often they don’t even want to see the abusive parent and are forced to. No, I don’t think violent/abusive people should be in children’s lives full stop.
The trail of destruction that can be avoided here is massive.

@minesapintoftea I see what you are saying but to be honest kids in their own homes are far more likely to be abused by somebody in their own homes where they are supposed to
be safe than a random person in a institutional setting. So I think it’s equally important or even more so that kids are protected from abusers that abuse in the home environment.

Kids have a right to a relationship with their parents unless there is real compelling evidence that the parent is a threat to the child, there will be lots of cases that fall awkwardly along the borderline here, it will be got wrong but fundamentally I agree with this principle. Domestic abuse is horrendous and should be prosecuted where possible—at the same time you have to consider the child’s interests here and right to a relationship with their parents. Frankly you have no right here to just decide that thousands of children who have strong parental bonds—no not trauma bonds but relationships—should have these destroye, unless there is a need to protect them.

@Nursejackie1

And if we are really honest these decisions are more about the man than the child’s needs

I really don’t agree with this. The relationship a child has with their parents is crucial to their entire life, I think it should take exceptionally high burdens to cut this. Cutting a child’s relationship with their parent will cause damage and distress for life, it’s a hard balance in each individual case to see where the greatest protection of the child lies

No man who is violent or abusive towards their mother actually loves his children. It's not possible.

Children do not suffer from not seeing an abusive father they are saved from it.

The family court system is broken and at the mercy of the patriarchy. Fathers rights are paramount no matter the cost to the children.

I know of a father who served years in prison for sexually assaulting his daughter. The mother was threatened with a reversal of residency if she did not facilitate unsupervised contact on his release.

Under his eye.

@flowers500 you only have to go on the relationships board in here to see the horrific damage being brought up with an abusive parent in your life does to children. How many threads do we see on here where people have suffered immensely from having a violent controlling parent in their life? You rarely read that anyone has suffered by them not being in their lives

That’s horrendous @willyoujustbequiet. Just how can this be happening? And I suspect this isn’t a rare case sadly

Yes, everytime I read a thread on here where a man is still being allowed access to his children by the courts, when the reason he is not still with his children's mother is because he was abusive, I think WTF?! Why does this person still have access to those children?

@MinesAPintOfTea

The difficulty is that children suffer when they aren’t allowed to see both of their parents. Judging whether the harm of removing the bond with an abusive parent is worse than the risk of allowing them access is hard.

There is no inherent damage from not allowing an abusive person access to children in a school. So it is easier to decide to keep them away from those children.

This.

Attachment disorder is awful, it also has lifelong consequences.

@Nursejackie1 I agree with you completely.
The double standards in the children's/family crts is ridiculous if an abuse victim doesn't leave the abusive partner/husband the children will be taken into care for safeguarding of the child/children but if the mother leaves the abuser he will almost always given unsupervised access. How is that right ? How does that protect children?
Before anyone says it doesn't happen I know of 3 families where it did and the only reason my dds violent dad(who spent time in jail for the abuse that dd and I suffered) didn't get access is because he turned up to crt drunk and threatened the judge

The family court is already stacked in the favour of the mother in many cases.

What are you classing as abusive here? Just physical? What happens if the mother is abusive and alienates the NRP further? What if the man was provoked?

What if the man has shown no abuse to the children, should they stop having the relationship?

Relationships are very complex

DBS checks men who have been convicted of abuse, the vast majority of men never end up in court much less convicted - what about them, should they not see their kids?

I agree OP

How can the courts say the mother has to leave the father or be at risk of losing her kids...and then say the kids have got to see the father.

It's all based on the principle that just because they treat the mother horrifically it doesn't mean they will treat the kids in the same way. But where is the evidence that people who are abusive make good fathers?

I understand the posters saying about trauma bonds but I thought that came about when children were rejected by their primary carer? And if they still had consistent strong relationships in their life they were generally fine? Maybe I'm over simplifying? There are so many children who dont see their dads who are fine though.

I do think something needs to change. There was a post from a mum here a week or so ago, her 3 year old daughter was having such a hard time and getting violent and regressing in so many ways after seeing her dad on supervised visits. She couldn't get any help from any services as they 'couldn't help when the source of the trauma was still in the daughters life'. The daughter had witnessed extreme violence from the dad to the mum and was acting it out. To me its mad the system thinks that a person forcing your child to witness extreme violence towards a primary carer is worth being in a childs life. Its mad that they would have taken the child away had the mum remained and yet are forcing the child to visit the dad (supervised). Its mad that absolutely no one seems to care about the consistent negative effects on the child after these visits. Its mad they are forcing the mum to put her child in a situation causing the child clear distress and would take her to court if she didnt. Its mad that they are acknowledging the dad is causing the child trauma and refusing to do anything to help that child with trauma (such as stop visits or some form of therapy).

There needs to be some reassessment of what is in the childs best interests in every case, not just a blanket rule, and a reassessment of the affect on the child and some help if necessary

• sorry I meant attachment disorders not trauma bonsds

Every day we see posts on this site from women who are being knocked around, and posters telling them that they think they're keeping their kids away from it - but they're not. The kids know. And it affects them, deeply.

There's at least one poster who has to facilitate contact between her toddler and the father, the father who regularly beat her mother. The toddler comes back from (supervised) contact traumatised every single week - but she still has to do it.

I agree @Nursejackie1. I think rather than it being a case of 'well they're not harming the kid now so let's carry on' it should be that the father has to prove themselves trustworthy first - whether that's completing a set number of parenting classes, anger management - whatever I don't know.

@Rebornagain - what evidence have you got for that? Because all the evidence seems to point to when a father actually wants more contact, he gets it. It's not stacked in the mother's favour if that's because 90% of dad's don't do anything to increase contact.

I read some of the stories on here and my heart honestly breaks.

DBS checks for women too.

@gardeninggirl68 I think you haven’t understood my point. I’m just using the fact that anyone with violence on a dbs check is not allowed to work with kids. Because they are a danger to them. So I’m comparing the fact that when men abuse women and have kids with the woman even though they are abusive they are allowed to carry on being a part of the kids lives purely because they have provided a sperm donation. So why does the same thinking of abusive men around children not apply in these cases.
And I am saying men because the overwhelming amount of abuse in society is carried out by men so no NAMALT please.

Absolutely @Bobsyer. We hear all the time on here and with people I know how abusive men ruin kids lives right through to their adulthood.
You never hear of people complaining that they have ended up damaged because their abusive parent was kept away from them.