Page 3 | TW To notice that a lot of child murders have one thing in common

Worldinyourhands · 2024-12-14T00:01:45+00:00

Has anyone else noticed the chilling common theme in the child murders that keep being reported (it feels like) in recent times? There's another today, and as soon as I read the heartbreaking report, that same factor jumped out yet again. An unrelated partner being involved in the child's life. A parent and a boyfriend/girlfriend or (less commonly) new husband/wife. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm obviously OBVIOUSLY not saying that step parents are all evil. Nor am I saying that biological parents can't be evil. In all the cases I'm thinking of, the biological parents were totally complicit. But I am wondering if there needs to be some more red flags raised when school or social workers or whoever become aware that a child is having to live with a parent's romantic partner. Particularly a young child or a new partner, though I'm aware of at least one case involving a teenager (it broke my heart - I'm not naming any of the children on this post, but there have been multiple over the past few years). Not doing a poll either as it's too flippant. But has anyone else noticed this factor coming up time and time again? And does anyone else think that this aspect of safeguarding seems to be missed - presumably because we place far too much value on the parent's perceived 'right' to have a live-in romantic partner and not enough weight on the chlld's right not to live with an unrelated adult who doesn't love them?

Kibble29 · 14/12/2024 00:47

TheVampireArmand · 14/12/2024 00:43

Tbh what scares me is the mother being complicit in allowing the new partner to abuse her child in so many cases. It's documented time and time again. Some mothers collude, others allow it to happen when they're not present and the child is left with the new bloke.

The mothers involved in the child molestation cases of the singer from Lost Prophets (Ian Watkins?) chill me to my soul. So many of them seemed excited and happy to have him do it. Like they were specially chosen.

samarrange · 14/12/2024 00:52

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

SaulHudsonDavidJones · 14/12/2024 00:53

Feelinglow27 · 14/12/2024 00:06

Tbh I'm just sick of fucking male violence. What the fuck is wrong with them? I feel like they're another species and want to move away to a female only island.

What with these kids, Gisele, the poor nurse who was murdered by oral rape. God they are disgusting.

There something seriously wrong going on in modern society. I will never go near a man again and I hope my daughter turns out gay. I'm just sick of it all.

Fully expect the "not all men" responses. Don't care.

Totally agree with you

Yesiknowdear · 14/12/2024 00:53

The biggest factor in child abuse is that there is a step parent in the picture.
It's like 90-95%.

It's fucking harrowing and whilst I married a man who wasn't my eldest child's father, and he was really lovely to her, now that marriage is over, I absolutely will not be having a new partner to have around my younger two.

As I've aged I have become far less naive I guess.

Kibble29 · 14/12/2024 00:56

samarrange · 14/12/2024 00:52

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

That’s an excellent post.

Guest100 · 14/12/2024 00:56

I do think the risk of abuse is not limited to a step parent. It’s the step parent’s family having access to a non biological child.

Slowgrowingelm · 14/12/2024 01:01

@lastminutetrip
I learnt everything about how not to parent from my own parents.

And to answer your questions - no disability, had eventual CM, mix of UC when they were tiny and then worked /studied around school hours, no family help, unstable housing for several years, many sleepless nights worrying about bills, food on table etc but never once thought a man could get me out of that. But again that probably comes down to the countless poor choices I saw each of my parents make and how that affected their children.

MerryMaker · 14/12/2024 01:02

I have seen dating profiles where women say they are single mothers. I understand why they do this, but they are advertising their kids to paedophiles.

PostReader · 14/12/2024 01:02

Feelinglow27 · 14/12/2024 00:06

Tbh I'm just sick of fucking male violence. What the fuck is wrong with them? I feel like they're another species and want to move away to a female only island.

What with these kids, Gisele, the poor nurse who was murdered by oral rape. God they are disgusting.

There something seriously wrong going on in modern society. I will never go near a man again and I hope my daughter turns out gay. I'm just sick of it all.

Fully expect the "not all men" responses. Don't care.

Reading these threads makes me glad to be a lesbian, but even that doesn't mean that we get a pass from male violence. Not like they just leave us alone!

Pinkpurpletulips · 14/12/2024 01:03

Just the other side of the coin, is that my husband had and has very good relationships with both his stepmother and stepfather. His stepparents are in their eighties now and still call up to chat. His stepmother refers to me as her daughter in law.

UniqueOP · 14/12/2024 01:05

Oh, absolutely. I had a friend who worked in the court system and had access to all the files. She said the amount of times it was the mum's partner who abused a child was insane.

Original poster

Worldinyourhands · 14/12/2024 01:08

It's like when there's a dog attack and you read the news article and just know it's going to name one of about 2/3 breeds (I'm not naming them and bringing that onto this thread too but you bloody know what ones I mean!)

When you read these types of story now, it's almost certain that about three lines in you'll find '...her mother's partner'.

OP posts:

UniqueOP · 14/12/2024 01:08

Feelinglow27 · 14/12/2024 00:06

Tbh I'm just sick of fucking male violence. What the fuck is wrong with them? I feel like they're another species and want to move away to a female only island.

What with these kids, Gisele, the poor nurse who was murdered by oral rape. God they are disgusting.

There something seriously wrong going on in modern society. I will never go near a man again and I hope my daughter turns out gay. I'm just sick of it all.

Fully expect the "not all men" responses. Don't care.

There is so much coverage of these terrible stories that it can make you think like this. it's extreme to say that you'll never go near another man and hope your daughter is gay, and I think it's a sign that you're exposing yourself to these stories too much. There have always been horrendous people. You just need to spend time with good people and not focus overly much on these dreadful tales.

everychildmatters · 14/12/2024 01:11

Biological parents can also be murderers; look at the recent case in which a bio father was given custody of his daughter DESPITE having a history of being violent.
It's the family courts failing children too.

GoodnightIrene · 14/12/2024 01:13

sprigatito · 14/12/2024 00:08

It's inherently risky, an unrelated adult living with a child, without all the inbuilt safeguards of the parental bond. Think of all the intolerable crap we all take from our kids in the course of daily life, and how much harder it would be to do it for a child you didn't love and hadn't known since birth. Blended families and stepparenting are fraught with difficulty and risk, and people enter into it far too easily. Adults tend to think about their own relationships and their own compatibility, while children are just seen as homogeneous units who will fit in with whatever is decided. It rarely makes a happy family, and at the extreme end it's lethal.

An excellent post. Nailed it!

theduchessofspork · 14/12/2024 01:13

samarrange · 14/12/2024 00:52

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

Exactly.

UniqueOP · 14/12/2024 01:14

samarrange · 14/12/2024 00:52

As usual, this comes down to relative and absolute risk. The relative risk posed by a step-parent, new live-in partner, etc, might well be higher than that of the natural parent. But the absolute risk posed by either is still tiny.

Put another way: If a child is murdered, there's probably a higher chance that it was the step-parent (etc) who did it than the natural parent. But very few children are murdered at all in the UK. In fact the amount of national coverage that almost every case gets is testament to that. Yes, of course every murder of a child is one too many. But preventing all of them would require taking 80% of children away from their mothers "just in case", because we're not very good at predicting who will murder their child.

Why does this matter? Because as a society we have decided that attempting to deal with relative risks is a slippery slope that leads to discrimination.

If you look at the statistics for any rare crime, and divide the population up into small enough chunks, you can guarantee that you will find that some ethnic or social group commits more of that particular crime (relative risk). But that doesn't mean that even people from that group are actually especially likely to commit that crime (absolute risk) - it just means that they are a bit more likely to be the perpetrators if the crime is committed. Posh white men are more likely to commit fraud in the City, but most posh white men don't commit fraud, and it would be unfair for the police to pick up the first posh white man they come across when they hear of a case of fraud.

So the police and politicians have decided to concentrate on absolute risk, which avoids all the awkwardness of profiling. Hence why we hear things like "Crime is down 8% year-on-year", which is great if you were not a victim of crime this year, but doesn't help much if you were.

The OP may very will be right, that a disproportionate amount of the violence against kids is being perpetrated by step-parents (etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether we can do anything to fix the problem by somehow targeting men who start relationships with single mothers. The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat. What we can do is try to make people generally more aware of the warning signs of a bad partner, through education. But with 70 million people, occasionally some bad things are going to happen, and to some extent that's the price of living in a free society where we don't point the finger of suspicion at someone based on their circumstances or demographics.

I agree with another poster; this is a great post. Yes, terrible things do happen to people, but the vast majority of people don't experience these things, thankfully. I have friends in the US who say they're scared for their kids to go to school, but the chances of their child experiencing a school shooting is extremely small. Too much focus on the negative is very bad for mental health. To help stop the spiralling, it's helpful to reflect on the billions of evenings out, school days, dates, etc that happen without people getting shot or raped or murdered.

Guest100 · 14/12/2024 01:15

everychildmatters · 14/12/2024 01:11

Biological parents can also be murderers; look at the recent case in which a bio father was given custody of his daughter DESPITE having a history of being violent.
It's the family courts failing children too.

I wonder if there will be a huge class action lawsuit against the family courts. There must be many people that grew up in horrific situations where it was forced by the court.

aLittleWhiteHorse · 14/12/2024 01:15

Too too often true. When I separated I knew I’d never move another man into my home before the children got to the age of 18, in order to keep them safe. And I was very cagey re being a parent when OLD; no mention of age or sex. Naturally my ExH had no such concerns and his replacement wife has bullied our children horribly to the extent of children requesting therapy.

Bunbry · 14/12/2024 01:18

I think there's a pattern among immature parents - often young but not always - where the arrival of a new partner prompts the parent to pretend the child doesn't exist.
There have been a couple of awful cases where young mums have gone on holiday leaving a child to fend for itself and the recent cases where mothers have been complicit in the abuse of their children. I can't even begin to comprehend the child kept in the divan drawer.

Original poster

Worldinyourhands · 14/12/2024 01:20

The vast majority of those men will not harm their new step-kids; there are probably people reading this post who are in that position and know that their new partner is not a threat.

The problem with this kind of thinking is the 'know that their new partner is not a threat' bit. Don't you think that's what the vast majority of women whose partners come into the home and abuse their children think? They'd all say they know he's not a threat. But they don't know. And they don't act with caution or care, because it's lovely Steve! He's not a p**do or a bad guy! And then later it's... well it's Steve's home too, he's entitled to discipline the kids if they're not doing XYZ' etc. And 'Of course he looks after X overnight when I go away. He's like a dad to her.'

I have known a monster. He did not say 'Hey folks, I'm a monster'. He was nice Steve, the partner that someone would KNOW is not a threat too, given half a chance.

OP posts:

RogueFemale · 14/12/2024 01:21

steff13 · 14/12/2024 00:05

Everyone has noticed it. Dr. Phil said on his show years ago that a child who lives with a stepparent is 35x more likely to be a victim of abuse.

Second biggest risk is surely the biological parent, though?

Bunbry · 14/12/2024 01:22

everychildmatters · 14/12/2024 01:11

Biological parents can also be murderers; look at the recent case in which a bio father was given custody of his daughter DESPITE having a history of being violent.
It's the family courts failing children too.

Not sure if it's a recent development but judges seem to have adopted a soap opera role. The Sharif case where the biological mother was heavily criticised by a Family Court judge for being uncivil to the woman who went on to be convicted of her murder was shocking.

UniqueOP · 14/12/2024 01:25

Slowgrowingelm · 14/12/2024 00:36

When I divorced my ex my children were all small and I had full custody. I made a promise to myself I would never live with anyone until they were all safely off to uni. Eldest is in first year, middle one in A levels and the last is doing GCSEs.

I’ve had an absolute ball dating, much more fun than my 16 years with the ex. These days I have a fairly significant ‘other’ but I don’t live with him, he doesn’t stay overnight, the kids didn’t meet him until I had known him for almost a year, and everyone knows that they are my absolute priority.
I have never understood women who turn to a new man and start that awful fawning dance and let a stranger come in to their children’s lives like that.

Not all situations are alike. Some single mums meet good men and their children's lives are enhanced by the second marriage. In a good situation, the children benefit from having another caring adult in the house and greater financial security. I've read a lot on Mumsnet about single mums avoiding a committed relationship for many years until the children are grown up, and I've wondered if that's always necessary. But of course, you have to actually meet a really good person, not an average one, and that's not easy. It's academic unless you meet someone who's a really good person.

Startinganew32 · 14/12/2024 01:25

A biological mother and father both love and care deeply for their child and want the best

Like Sara Sharif’s dad? Bollocks, men abuse their biological children at scary rates too - let’s not kid ourselves. The problem is largely male violence and men, whether step fathers or biological fathers.