I hit DH

[Bnxybee]

I slapped DH on the arm.

For context, my 3-year-old DS is a terrible sleeper. We usually put him to bed at around 8 or 9 but he’s often awake by midnight screaming hysterically and wanting to go downstairs. We’ve tried the “cry it out” method to no avail and we’re both sleep deprived.

I came back from work tonight and DS was
asleep. When I started to drift off around midnight, he woke up and started screaming. At this point, I was irrationally annoyed with DH who was gaming with his online mates. I’ve been up since just before 6 am but I stayed up with DS the night before last (I think. I’m actually getting my days mixed up). I asked DH to help me settle him and he seemed so pissed off I interrupted his precious game. DS was screaming that he wanted to go downstairs but DH wanted to let him cry it out. His crying became more and more hysterical whilst DH told me I’m the cause of his behaviour for giving into him at bed time. Truthfully, I just can’t let him cry it out, especially when he starts thrashing and hyperventilating like he’s going to be sick and sometimes even head butting (suspected ASD).

I swore at DH and told him to go to bed because I would stay up with DS. He didn’t move and without a thought I slapped his arm and told him to get out. He turned around and told me that if I ever hit him again he would break my fingers. I know I shouldn’t have slapped him but it honestly wasn’t hard at all. DH even said so but said there was malice there. Again, I know I’m making excuses for myself but he has (playfully) slapped my bum twice as hard when I’ve stood up next to him. Still, if he’d have done that to me tonight I’d be shocked and angry.

I'm just incredibly frustrated. He doesn’t really do anything with DS when he finishes work. It would be nice if he took him to the park for half hour or even kicked a ball around with him (he’s such a busy, active child). Yesterday, he shouted and swore at me in front of DS and my MIL who actually pulled him up on it and texted me
today to see if I was okay.

I want to create a sensory room for DS to see if it helps his sleep but DH isn’t interested so I have to pay for all of it. Despite being on less than half his salary.

I still hit him though.

FFS, “victim blamer”. Her conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter- so it’s a fact that she’s a convicted domestic abuser who has done serious time in prison for her crime of killing her husband.

She wasn’t exonerated as in found not guilty on appeal. Her guilty plea of manslaughter was accepted.

Yes the court acknowledged her husband had emotionally abused her, but that wasn’t why her conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter.

In this recent Court of Appeal decision, Lady Justice Hallett, said: “There might be those out there who think this is [sic] appeal is all about coercive control but it’s not… Primarily, it’s about diagnosis of disorders that were undiagnosed at the time of the trial.”
theconversation.com/why-sally-challens-appeal-is-not-a-win-for-women-victims-of-coercive-control-112869

The BBC reported:
The lesser charge was accepted on the grounds of diminished responsibility after a psychiatric report concluded Mrs Challen was suffering from an "adjustment disorder".

@IrisVersicolor
It was Justice for Women who submitted the appeal, got her original conviction overturned, and a retrial set in the context of coercive control becoming illegal in 2015 and her history of decades of abuse.

That is what Justice for Women attempted to do, but they failed. When Sally Challens appeal on the basis of diminished responsibility due to new psychiatric evidence succeeded, Justice for Women claimed credit and pretended to the media that it was in the context of coercive control. It never was:

“Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Sweeney and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, said: “The court of appeal heard that, in the opinion of a consultant forensic psychiatrist, the appellant was suffering from two mental disorders at the time of the killing. This evidence was not available at the time of the trial and the court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.”

From the Court of Appeal decision that quashed the murder conviction:

They rejected the coercive control argument:

“However, it is important to remember that coercive control as such is not a defence to murder.”

”We emphasise that we were not persuaded that had it stood alone the general theory of coercive control on the facts as presented to us would have afforded the appellant a ground of appeal.”

“We express no view on whether the appellant was the victim of coercive control and no view, if she was a victim, on the extent to which it impacted upon her ability to exercise self-control or her responsibility for her actions.”

They quashed the murder conviction and ordered a retrial due to the psychiatric disorders:

”First, we accept that Dr Adshead was consulted because of genuine changes in the appellant's condition in prison, namely the manic episodes. Coupled with the history of depression, the episode suggested to the appellant's solicitor a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder. This was confirmed later by Dr Adshead….If her diagnosis of the two disorders is correct, this was missed by the psychiatrist at trial and there is a reasonable explanation for not adducing the evidence.

”Second, we accept that the evidence is credible and would have been admissible in the proceedings.”

”Having received Dr Adshead's opinion, therefore, we are satisfied that it does undermine the safety of the conviction. We shall quash that conviction.
We have considered the representations made to us as to whether we should substitute a verdict of manslaughter or order a retrial. We have concluded that the only proper option for us, given the issues are not for us to determine, is to order a retrial. We shall say no more because we do not wish to prejudice that retrial.”
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/challen-approved.pdf

Your claim that Challen is a convicted domestic abuser underlines the point that you don’t understand what domestic abuse is.

She killed her husband after decades of his abuse.

Hallett was the the appeal judge not the judge who passed sentence on Challen in lieu of retrial with his own comments on her experience of long term domestic abuse.

Hallett’s point is, correctly, that the appeal was granted on a point of law regarding mental disorders. They didn’t ‘reject’ the coercive control argument, they simply said it wasn’t of itself a defence which diminished responsibility is. They said that had it stood ‘alone’ it would not have been sufficient, but it did not.

The legal technicality on which appeal was granted must be understood in the wider context in which the court heard the abuse Challen had suffered in, as well as the fact that her mental condition was not taken into account in the original.

The appeal court heard from friends and family who witnessed the coercive control, and from psychology experts who explained its effects. The argument was also made that Challen would have had the legal defence of coercive control had the case been 5 years later.

Hallett asked Challen’s barrister: ‘To get this straight in my mind, would a good working title be' psychological battered women syndrome?''.

To which the barrister replied: ‘Yes, absolutely.’

As I said, the case would never have reached appeal stage without the campaign from Challen’s son and Justice for Women, in addition to a greater understanding of domestic abuse and its effects that accompanied the change in the law on coercive control.

If you read your own blog link the writers simply warn that the offence of coercive control, partly because it’s rarely prosecuted, is not of itself a road to justice for women who kill after long term abuse.

They comment that while diminished responsibility may be a ‘useful partial defence’ for such women, the down side is it that it paints them as ‘mad or bad’.

@IrisVersicolor

The defence made the argument but it was a dead cat argument. The appeal court rejected the coercive control defence both for murder and as grounds for appeal. They only used it as context to explain why the court psychiatrist missed her mental disorders at the time of the original trial. That was it.

And you quoting Hallet asking a question to clarify the defences argument doesn’t indicate she agreed with the argument at all or that she agreed Challen was even a victim of abuse at all. In fact the court did not. I repeat:

We express no view on whether the appellant was the victim of coercive control and no view, if she was a victim, on the extent to which it impacted upon her ability to exercise self-control or her responsibility for her actions.

So your statement should properly read
”She killed her husband after decades of alleged abuse.” because the court did not find her to be a victim of abuse. The appeal court did not, and there was no retrial, so that court did not either as it simply accepted her guilty plea during a preliminary hearing for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility due to her psychiatric disorders.

No court ruled her to be exonerated due to her ex husbands alleged abuse. No court reduced her conviction from murder to manslaughter due to the alleged abuse.

She is still convicted for manslaughter of an intimate partner, so she is still convicted of intimate partner violence which is one of the most extreme forms of domestic abuse.

You insisting she’s not an abuser makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you have an agenda that says only men can be perpetrators of IPV/DA and so any dead men killed by female partners or ex partners cannot be victims.

Hi everyone,
Just a reminder to please not derail the thread.

Best wishes

@FrippEnos OP has posted before about her husband being a sex pest and groper. She is also constantly treading on egg shells because he is so controlling. I’m pretty sure he will be abusive again

Ignoring the inconsistency in that she is walking on eggshells by telling him what to do, swearing at him etc and then hitting him.

Violence is still wrong and she needs to own what she does and move on from it.

I haven't defended the husband. He needs to take responsibility for his own actions.

Repeating what I have said
violence is wrong and she needs to leave this very toxic relationship.

You have misinterpreted the words of the appeal judge.

It’s not the case that the appeal court ‘rejected’ coercive control as a defence to murder - it is not and never has been a defence to murder. There are only 4 partial defences to murder (self defence for example is a complete defence): diminished responsibility, loss of control, suicide pact, infanticide.

Challen’s case for appeal was that her mental health issues were misdiagnosed at the original trial, and the domestic abuse not considered.

The appeal was granted in relation to Challen’s original defence of diminished responsibility. It is not the remit of the appeal judges to decide if coercive control happened - as it would be the case if a defendant were on trial for coercive control.

That is why they say they express no view on whether it happened or not.
That does not mean they are saying it did or didn’t happen. Nor does it mean that the background of domestic abuse is not material to the case.

You take the legal technicalities of the case to arrive at the wholly erroneous view, literally supported by no-one, that Challen was not the victim of da and was herself the abuser.

Sorry I didn’t see this. Fair point.

And to be honest I don’t want to enable victim blaming views and an attempt to portray a victim of domestic abuse in a renown case as the abuser.