(CW Child abuse) Why do mothers not protect their children from abusive boyfriends

[OutWithTheMule]

There has been another horrific child abuse death and I have noticed in the majority of these cases the mothers boyfriend has been abusing the child, and the mother is aware and allows it to happen, and usually protects them by trying to cover it up from the police after the fact.

In the awful case that has been in the news today the mother had only been with her boyfriend for 36 days. She allowed the abuse to continue because she didn't want him to leave her. How the fuck can you choose someone you have known 36 days over your own child!?

I just can't understand why these women choose their boyfriends over their children, if anyone laid a finger on my daughter I would flay them!! Even if you wouldn't physically intervene you would take your child and leave surely? If the boyfriend isn't the child's father they have no access to them if you just take them somewhere else. I know women are sometimes scared to leave abusive partners but often in these stories the partner is not abusing the mother, they are only abusing the child and the mother either passively allows it or sometimes joins in.

I understand that the fault lies with the boyfriends obviously, they are monsters and there is no excusing their actions, it's horrific. But it makes sense, violent men abuse children, it's straightforward as disgusting as it is. What I cannot understand for the life of me is why a mother would allow a boyfriend to harm their child or actively choose a boyfriend over their child. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone shed any light on these women's behaviour?

Oh Jesus I'm out. You don't want to get , that's fine. I was going to suggest you read up on brain development and the effects of trauma on the brain, but I see it's pointless.

You do you ,boo.

Where on earth do you work for goodness sake, you're talking such a load of rubbish on this thread although this particular post takes the biscuit!

So what is the test for this then? What biological markers do you have for this? I would like to know what this test consists of?

The list I gave comes from the diagnostic booklet itself. So if what I said was rubbish then you have just rubbished the diagnostic procedure! Which for once I agree with you! It is bullshit.

Surely if abused ppl abuse ppl then…

There have been dozens of studies done on the intergenerational cycle of violence. See: Intergenerational effects of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review of the parenting practices of adult survivors of childhood abuse, neglect, and violence
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7476782/#S34

This systematic review evaluated 1,322 articles on child abuse of which 97 met the review criteria: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7476782/figure/F1/.

“In spite of the breadth of populations, definitions, and methodologies included in these studies, there was general consistency in findings that a history of CPA [Child Physical Abuse] confers increased risk for engaging in abusive or neglectful parenting, either directly or indirectly.”

[According to ONS, 7.72% of boys reported being physically abused compared to 7.54% of girls: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/childabuseextentandnatureenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019]

Other types of child abuse don’t increase risk of an abused child then abusing their children:
“…there was little support for an association between a history of CSA [Child Sexual Abuse] and engaging in abusive or neglectful parenting.”

In addition
“It is important to note that across studies, findings suggest that the vast majority of adults who were abused as children did not abuse their own children, thus breaking the cycle of violence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Kim, 2009; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). Nevertheless, the experience of abuse in childhood confers significant risk for the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting behaviors, as the majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood (Coohey & Braun, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%. Thus, protective factors that enable parents who were maltreated in childhood to break the cycle warrant investigation in order to facilitate a better understanding of how to prevent this transmission.”

There won’t be one. I have posted above a systematic review that found the opposite to be true, which is exactly in line with what you have posted.

The majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%

”Nevertheless, the experience of abuse in childhood confers significant risk for the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting behaviors, as the majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood (Coohey & Braun, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%.”

This is interesting and I sometimes wonder if the response is

• concern due to poorer single mums being vulnerable or
• faux concern rooted in classist assumptions about promiscuity of council estate single mums..ie the stereotype of 4 kids with 4 different dads.

And yet the conviction data shows the opposite in all countries. Quite interesting that. So most women are abusers and we just wrongly convict men for the majority of crimes when it should be most women incarcerated?

I would also like to understand why we accept rapists are the main false accusers when it comes to sex crimes yet abusers do not lie...why is that?

Your response is so off the wall and vague that I can’t make heads or tails of it in relation to the published statistic I cited. Did you mean to quote a different post?

Not vague at all - conviction data for males vs females abusing others shows males at a significant difference to women and as females are abused more often your logic is that most women are abusers or at risk of being while men are the victims of some kind of miscarriage of justice?

Nope I was on about DARVO, you do know what that means, right? Quite something that when criminals are caught they pretend to be the victim. It is classic in things like rape - pretending to be falsely accused of rape when they are not. And all these adults who couldn't ever speak out suddenly find their voice when arrested and blame someone else....now is there a study that shows how many of these who claim to have been abused are DARVO cases and how many are truthful? We accept that criminals lie often to deflect and to get away with their crimes. Happens in all crimes...yet not with abuse? Why so?

Also thanks for the articles that are backing up what I said - one states clearly that most do not abuse. Meaning there is no link, causation or correlation. However there is an odd thing that most abusers say they were abused....most rapists say they were falsely accused....most thieves say they were framed, most ....see the pattern? Lying to avoid punishment is the 2nd most common reason for lying. Now who would lie to avoid punishment? And why do we assume that abusers do not lie?

I will try and break it down.

I cited a systematic review that found that:
The majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%

You replied to the above with “the conviction data shows the opposite in all countries”. You have expanded what you mean by that is the “conviction data for males vs females abusing others shows males at a significant difference to females” which isn’t remotely relevant much less “the opposite” of the finding I cited.

You then carried on “…as females are abused more often your logic is that most women are abusers or at risk of being while men are the victims of some kind of miscarriage of justice” - nothing I have posted stated or implied any of that so I am at a loss as to why you have written this. My citation refers to “parents” which, as you no doubt know, is a gender neutral term that refers to males and females.

“I would also like to understand why we accept rapists are the main false accusers when it comes to sex crimes yet abusers do not lie...why is that?”
and
”We accept that criminals lie often to deflect and to get away with their crimes. Happens in all crimes...yet not with abuse?”

No one has said that “abusers do not lie” least of all I. The systematic review I cited accurately used the term “reported” for the measure which isn’t a guarantee of absolute fact or truth.

In regards, to the question of how many adult child abuse survivors or “false accusers” as you call them are lying about being victims of child abuse; there is no data on that which I know of. There are many studies into why adult survivors of child abuse have difficulty recognising abuse for abuse, and being able to disclose it at any point in their lives which indicate that it is more likely that false accusations are rare (similar to how victims of historic rape usually aren’t lying either). This applies to all child abuse survivors including the ones who do not go on to abuse their own children and those who do, male or female. I’d ask you for data that shows most adult child abuse survivors disclose historic child abuse done to them immediately after being arrested by police for abusing a child, but I don’t think such data exists.

I don’t think DARVO applies either as it refers to an abuser alleging that their victim is abusing them. With child abuse, an abuser can’t DARVO their way into anyone believing their child victim is abusing them by disclosing historic abuse of them when they were a child by another adult. In addition, disclosing that you were abused as a child, isn’t something that will let you get away with having abused a child so there isn’t the “get away with their crime” motivation to lie that you suggest.

To recap. I cited the statistic to counter the bollocks you have posted over and over on this thread saying that survivors of child abuse are less likely to abuse their children than are adults who were not abused as children. I suppose I should not be surprised that you’d decide to say “they’re lying!” in response even though the studies done on adults never arrested, never charged, and never reported also fall within the same consistent range of 75% or more.

You believe them all so you are saying that abusers do not lie or are you admitting that you accept that some masquerading as survivors are not in fact survivors at all?

They are not abuse survivors if they are lying about it. if they are telling the truth they are. You admit there is no data so many will not be survivors yet you say they are and believe abusers. If they are not survivors and lying they are not survivors. I never said they were not survivors. I said some will be lying some will not. Is there a reason why you chose to ignore that and pretend that I said none are victims? So no I am not calling them liars if they did not lie however I am calling liars liars who do. You are quite mistaken with that accusation. And a false one too. Ironic!

The main false accusers in rape are the rapists themselves I never mentioned ppl pretending to be raped. You did. In the same way that those who pretend to be abused False accusations when it comes to rape are common. Almost all rape victims are falsely accused of being a liar. You assume that the only person lying is the one making the report not the criminal. Rapists are 175 times more likely to lie than females or males fabricating rape. So yes false accusations when it comes to rape are common - from the rapist.

Some can do that as child on adult abuse exists and is growing as is child on parent abuse. Denying they were criminals is common and framing someone else as the perpetrator is common and also framing themselves as victims is common in all crimes - why not abuse? Pretending that you have an excuse for a lenient sentence and sympathy in court is a way of getting away with it. Criminals will use anything to be able to be out and free to abuse again. Including lying.

I didn't say they were lying. That is a lie on your behalf. I asked how many will lie and how many are abused - thus accepting some have been and some will be lying. Your fabrication that I said they are lying when I clearly said some will be and some will not is quite the false statement. I would assume nothing less from you but can you explain why you say that I accuse them of lying when I did not. I accuse liars of lying which they do and do not accuse those who do not. Not really rocket science. However you saying I accuse victims of lying is wholly untrue. I accuse those of lying who are lying. If they are lying they are not victims so therefore I have not accused a single victim as if they are victims they are not lying. If they are not victims they are lying so they deserve to be called out, yes or no?

Hence why I asked for data which you do not know of and then said you never said abusers do not lie - so are you now calling them liars yourself? Make it make sense!

The studies showed the vast majority did not abuse....while those that did 75% reported being abused so almost all of those who were abused did not go on to abuse others. 75% is of a small proportion not 75% of the whole amount. So no it was not 75% of those abused go on to abuse others it was most do not but of those who do 75% were reporting a history of abuse. Of those 75% some will be lying and some will be telling the truth. As you said there is no way of knowing who is lying or telling the truth as data doesn't exist for that (I suspect it does as it does for rapists). But what we can say is that there will be liars within that group using it to excuse their behaviour.

Well, just like every other poster, I give up trying to have a conversation with you. I don’t know how you not having any data to support your “many are lying”proves that “many are lying”. I’ve never said “I believe them all”.

I don’t know how you have the guts to constantly accuse us of ignoring or saying things we haven’t ignored or said.

I never mentioned people pretending to be raped Oh? Child rape happens and falls under child abuse. By saying “many are lying” you are in fact accusing “many” of pretending to have been raped. And as you say “Almost all rape victims are falsely accused of being a liar.” That is why it is similar. You brought in the dynamics of the he said/she said rape as a comparison to the I said/they said of child abuse, are you going to now regret that?

“You assume that the only person lying is the one making the report not the criminal”. Not at all, rather it is you assuming that no one can be the victim of a historic victim.

The studies showed the vast majority did not abuse....while those that did 75% reported being abused so almost all of those who were abused did not go on to abuse others. 75% is of a small proportion not 75% of the whole amount. So no it was not 75% of those abused go on to abuse others it was most do not but of those who do 75% were reporting a history of abuse.

You have failed to understand the maths here.

20% of children suffer from child abuse.
80% do not

This is a ratio of 1 in 4 children are abused (ONS report)

Out of 100% of adults who abuse children, 75% of them reported they were abused when they were children, with physical abuse being the #1 risk factor.

This is a ratio of 3 in 4 abusive adults reported they were abused as children

If abused children were less likely to become abusive parents than children who were not abused as you have repeatedly stated on this thread, then we would not be seeing these numbers.

Your response to this is “many are lying” and with no data whatsoever have invented your “less likely” and written it as if it were fact.

So no it was not 75% of those abused go on to abuse others
Of course it wasn’t. I cited what was written. You are correcting your initial misunderstanding here.

You ignored it as you said that I accused victims of lying. Nope I accused liars of lying. Not hard to understand. You just couldn't get your head around the fact that some will pretend to be victims and therefore are not victims being accused of lying but are not victims at all. Just liars.

Given that many lie in all other crimes it would stand to reason that the same applies in this crime. Or would you care to explain why there would be an unique difference in this case?

Nope that is not the case relating to rape. I said rapists (you do know rapists are ppl who rape, right) and those are the ones who falsely accuse. You have a view that false accusation comes from the reporters when in fact data shows the main false accusers are the rapists themselves when found out. So no not once did I mention victims of rape falsely accusing or ppl reporting falsely nor mentioned the data relating to those who falsely report (as that also shows it is men who falsely report more often and fabricate rape cases) specifically said rapists (meaning those who have raped). You have little understanding of how a rape victim is falsely accuse almost every single time by the perpetrator and are trying to pretend that I am on about those reporting it falsely which I never once stated. You just automatically assume I was on about those reporting as it has never crossed your mind that victims of rape also suffer false accusation on top of rape in most cases. I never once brought in the he said/she said as rape is rarely that as most has evidence and also quite homophobic too to assume that rape is male on female.

So no when you mention and merge two different statements you get the false statement that you have just come up with which is again more of a fabrication on your behalf. If they lie about being raped as a child then that is them lying about rape and being the perpetrators as I stated.

So now onto child rape - yes it does happen and perpetrators of rape will pretend to be victims to excuse their own behaviour in some cases - as I stated - perpetrators pretending. If they were not raped then they are not rape victims - not that hard to understand is it?

I do not regret saying those who have been abused as kids are not lying but those who have not are liars as that is the case. And merging two comments when talking about police reports and you assigning it to something else which was not about police reports is quite something else....an agenda maybe?

So how many are raped as kids given you suggest it is most? Despite those studies saying that experience of CSE show they are less likely to abuse others so those who report being sexually abused are the least likely to abuse others. So your attempt to link the two didn't work really did it. Being abused sexually it says is not linked to abusing later on in life.

20%...That is odd when 75% of female students report sexual abuse....you mean that number is an estimate based on the crime data which is clearly states. As we know the majority are not reported so that is a very low estimate.

Your maths isn't mathing. Almost all of those abused do not abuse others. Almost all being a high % (likely in the 90% range). Meaning that only a tiny proportion did abuse. It says that most of those abused did not go onto abuse so approximately 90% as an estimate of those who were abused did not abuse.

So that 75% is of the 10% who did abuse. So 75% of 10 is 7.5% of those abused go on to abuse others using the data as an estimate meaning 92.5% do not go on to abuse others. So over 90% of those abused do not abuse others and apparently abused ppl go on to abuse others?

Many are lying based on the data for other crimes showing many criminals lie and the fact we have abuse cases which have evidence that the perpetrator is a liar supports that. Without liars there would be no trials. Not rocket science. Or else why do criminals get taken to trial if they are not lying? If they admitted it they would get sent straight down. The fact there are trials and often shows how often abusers will lie. So there is evidence they lie. Not sure why you dismiss it.

You are very much mistaken if you think abusers are honest folk. Not sure why you are defending them so much and suggesting they are the only criminals who do not often lie. Quite a statement and with no back up either.

If abused children were less likely to become abusive parents than children who were not abused as you have repeatedly stated on this thread, then we would not be seeing these numbers.

The fact that your numbers show 92.5% of those abused do not go onto abuse based on estimates of 'almost all being 90% or thereabouts' then the numbers you are showing support my claim that most do not abuse when they have been abused. 92.5% in fact using estimations.

This.
“Contact at all costs” is their underlying rationale while claiming “best interests of the child”!
How can it be in the best interests of the child to have unsupervised overnight contact with a domestic abuser?
make it make sense. 🤷🏼‍♀️

My estimation was correct. The amount who didn't go on to abuse was listed as 89% and those who did were 11%. Meaning it is 75% of 11%. Which equates to 8.25% of those abused go on to abuse. meaning that 91.75% of victims of abuse do not go on to abuse. Meaning they are not likely at all by your own data.

Ah so it's not "another" thank god. It's been in the news weeks now. Lots of other threads.

Poor baby.

You are the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don’t think I have ever run across anyone who displays it quite so well as you.

No, your “estimate” which was more of a wild guess based on changing ‘vast majority’ to ‘almost all’ is incorrect, it is also not listed anywhere except in your own posts.

Furthermore you have attributed numbers you have pulled out of thin air to me & the links I posted - there is no 89% vs 11% as you have alleged. You have also made some glaring mathematical errors! The 75% of former victims who abuse their children is out of 100% of parents who abuse their children. It is not “75% of 11%” (reminder you made up 11% as the % of former victims who go on to abuse).

In terms you may understand better:
Because 1/5th the population (former victims) commit 75% of parental child abuse, they are more likely to commit parental child abuse than the 4/5ths of the population (never victims) that commit only 25% of parental child abuse. [this is the evidenced ONS data and the review data I have posted upthread on this p12 of this thread at 23:15.]

Just like because 1/2 the population (men) commit 95% of homicides, they are more likely to be killers than the 1/2 of the population (women) who commit only 5% of homicides.

In both cases, only a small minority of each commit these crimes so we can still say it is unlikely that former victims will abuse their children or that a man will kill anyone.

However, the comparison of less likely/more likely to commit a crime is always between two populations that are committing a crime and is not a comment on general likelihood.

This was a comparison you have made with numerous unevidenced statements along these lines in the thread:
“…if you suffer abuse you are less likely to abuse others.” (Schmeler Yesterday 17:16)

You were unsurprisingly incorrect:
”Nevertheless, the experience of abuse in childhood confers significant risk for the intergenerational transmission of abusive parenting behaviors, as the majority of maltreating parents reported having been abused in childhood (Coohey & Braun, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), with rates in most studies greater than or equal to 75%.”

Your claim “…if you suffer abuse you are less likely to abuse others.” (Schmeler Yesterday 17:16)” is worlds away from what you are now saying is your claim:
”…the numbers you are showing support my claim that most do not abuse when they have been abused.” (Schmeler today 03:01)

which isn’t your claim but something I posted in the form of a quote from the systemic reviews:

Me 23:15 “In addition
“It is important to note that across studies, findings suggest that the vast majority of adults who were abused as children did not abuse their own children, thus breaking the cycle of violence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Kim, 2009; Pears & Capaldi, 2001). ”

so yes the real data supports this. However the real data doesn’t support your “less likely claim” it supports the exact opposite.

Nope the data was from the study. I used the reference list to then read the study and took the data from there. The data was presented and as the article said almost all didn't abuse then my estimate was correct. I used the data YOu gave me or did you not read your own study you shared? Seems like you didn't.

1/5 do not commit most of the abuse. The majority of those who commit abuse have not been abused. You are now saying that because there are 20% of the population are victims (very low estimate given other data says otherwise) and most of those are abusers despite your own data showing that 88% of that 20% do not go on to abuse. Only 8.25% of that 20% do.

And based on such low numbers from the study I do not consider that to be typical for all of the population either. And given they said they purposely chose ppl from poor backgrounds and ppl with criminal histories already then the bias of the study hasn't been accepted on your behalf and not a representation of society as a while.

You are saying only a small minority and then saying it is 75% of all those abused are abusers. Which is wholly inaccurate and you have clearly misunderstood the basics of a fraction of a percentage.

Likely is a mathematical term based on probability. It means that it is more than a 50% chance that someone will do this. That is not true. Using mathematical terms incorrectly doesn't make it so. Likely means it more often than not will happen. That is not the case. Less likely means it happens less often than not which is correct. Basic mathematical language used accurately.