(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?

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).

Nope the 100% was all those in the study - basic maths (parts and wholes). The whole amount is the 100% of people in the study.

100% all in the study (whole)
88% of those did not abuse but were abused (part)
11% did abuse of which 8.25% were previously abused and 2.75% were not (2 parts).

Those included can be:
Abused and not abuse themselves (88%)
Abused and abuse themselves (8.25%)
Not abused and abuse themselves
Not abused and not abuse themselves

The study talks about the majority not going on to abuse (88% which you conveniently quoted as saying:

“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). ”

The vast majority in the study as being 88% as stated by the study. You are saying that despite it clearly saying that the vast majority did not abuse your words then said that the study is made of 100% of parents who abuse. The study then says that 75% of the remaining who did abuse were abused in childhood.

So the 75% is of the minority who go on to abuse not of the 100% as part of that 100% are people who have not abused (the majority in your own words).

The numbers were lifted directly from study and calculated as a percentage of the whole and a percentage of a percentage.

“The vast majority in the study as being 88% as stated by the study..”
”100% all in the study (whole)
88% of those did not abuse but were abused (part)
11% did abuse of which 8.25% were previously abused and 2.75% were not (2 parts).”
The numbers were lifted directly from study…”

Stop with the bullshitting. @schmeler

The systematic review did NOT state those 88% or 11% figures at all. You have made them up. You then multiplied those numbers randomly to come up with more bogus figures of 8.25% and 2.75%. You pulled them out of thin air. And it’s not a study, it’s a systematic review of 97 studies that met the review criteria. So there is no “100% was all those in the study..” because it wasn’t a study! That’s not how systematic reviews work.

“The study then says that 75% of the remaining who did abuse were abused in childhood. So the 75% is of the minority who go on to abuse not of the 100% as part of that 100% are people who have not abused (the majority in your own words).”

No. The systematic review did NOT state this. The 75% in the review refers to the minimum reported % of ALL (100% of ) maltreating parents that abuse their children who reported having been abused as children. The remainder, 25%, are the maximum % of maltreating parents that abuse their children who reported not having been abused as children:
”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%.”

The review has a lot of discussion and proof showing that adults who were abused as children are more likely to abuse their own children than adults who were not abused as children:

”Studies in which the additive effects of multiple maltreatment experiences were examined consistently indicated that a history of childhood abuse, neglect, and/or interparental violence was associated with greater likelihood of perpetrating physical abuse or neglect on one’s children (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2003; Ben-David, 2016; Chung et al., 2009; L. R. Cohen, Hien, & Batchelder, 2008; Dubowitz et al., 2001; Ferrari, 2002; Frías-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998; Fulu et al., 2017; Heyman & Slep, 2002; Jackson et al., 1999; Kim, Pears, et al., 2010; Kim, Trickett, & Putnam, 2010; Milaniak & Widom, 2015). These findings held even after controlling for other child and adult risk factors (Ben-David, Jonson-Reid, Drake, & Kohl, 2015). Further, in cluster analysis, physically abusive parents tended to report greater levels of cumulative abuse histories compared with parents who scored low on the use of physical discipline (Thompson et al., 1999).”

”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.”

”This finding is consistent with, and in several ways extends, results from Savage et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis, which found a small but consistent relationship between women’s histories of childhood maltreatment victimization with their use of negative parenting behaviors with their young (ages 0–6 years old) children.”

Edited to correct autocorrects incorrect spelling

I used the reference list directly to go to the study which you quoted and took the data directly from there. No bullshitting. One would ask why you posted something you have not read but just lifted quotes from someone else who has collated things?

Why is that?

You post a link and ask me to read it so I did including the reference list and the linked studies. Now you are complaining that I read the reference list studies and the original data and are not happy?

Make it make sense! Sorry I did as you asked and responded to the information you provided with the raw data not a 2nd hand study which referenced it.

No you did not because I checked the systemic review and the individual studies referenced for the 75%, which you have completely misunderstood/misrepresented.

You most certainly did not read the review because you are asserting the exact opposite of what the review showed in its results, discussion and conclusion and using bogus figures to give your maths a veneer of competency. I doubt you have even read all of what I have quoted from the review. You are the only person I have met who can read very clear data saying x is greater than y and still try and argue that x is less than y.

So you haven't read the raw data then as it clearly states it. You have googled a link and posted it without reading the studies that contributed to it and are now blaming me for doing so.

I read it all. I most certainly know how to calculate a fraction of a fraction.

I also saw the bias in the studies that they purposely selected - those on drugs, with a history of alcohol misuse, poverty, previous police involvement and purposely chosen the majority of men as in their words men are the main abusers. So no those you linked to have significant limitations and is not representative of a population at all. Unless you are now saying that those who were abused are mostly drug users and alcoholics etc as that is who they chose in the studies!

You are the only person I have met who can read very clear data saying x is greater than y and still try and argue that x is less than y.

You yourself posted the statement that said “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). ”

And taking that statement and saying this means most were abused.

The vast majority of adults who were abused as children did NOT abuse their own children. Maybe read it a few times before you understand it. So it happened less often than not. Basic probability and understanding words. Meaning it is more likely that if you were abused you do not go on to abuse others as the majority do not.

I don't think I have ever encountered somebody so dedicated to demonstrating their total ineptitude in a subject until now.

@schmeler you are confusing absolute risk with relative risk. I'm going to do an Explain it Like I'm 5 for you.

100 abusers are sitting in a hall for their first Child Abusers Anonymous meeting.

The abusers are asked to sit at one of two tables:

Table A: Those abused as children
Table B: Those not abused as children

75 abusers sit at Table A (abused as children)
25 abusers sit at Table B (not abused as children)

Which table has the largest proportion of abusers sitting around it?

Most people who were abused as children do not become child abusers.

But among those who do become child abusers, a much larger proportion come from Table A (those abused as children) than from Table B (those not abused as children).

So, although most people who were abused as children do not go on to become child abusers themselves, being abused as a child significantly increases the likelihood of becoming an abuser.

I think there is probably a lot of abuse and gaslighting in the relationship so just like abuse of partners, abuse of kids will come on gradually and be explained away or minimised or hidden by the abusive partner. And over time the child is scapegoated and dehumanised as the abuser makes sure they are no. 1 in the parents life and the child seen as an annoyance or the problem. There was a lot of this in the Star Hobson story.

100 abusers are sitting in a hall for their first Child Abusers Anonymous meeting.
The abusers are asked to sit at one of two tables:
Table A: Those abused as children
Table B: Those not abused as children
75 abusers sit at Table A (abused as children)
25 abusers sit at Table B (not abused as children)
Which table has the largest proportion of abusers sitting around it?

Let me explain it to you as that is not what the data said.

It said 100 ppl (not abusers, just people) so that is your first mistake.

These ppl are a mix of abusers and non-abusers. They are not 100 abusers. The data did not say that. It was 100 ppl of which SOME are abusers but most are not. That is your bias assuming they were abusers but it clearly states and I have quoted many times - the vast majority of these are not abusers.

Table A has 88 of them were abused as a child but who do NOT go on to abuse their kids. This is a table of 88 ppl who are NOT abusers. The majority.

The remaining are split over table B and there are two parts to this table.

Table B has some who were abused as kids and abused as adults (75% of those sitting at this table NOT 75% of all of the ppl in the room).

Table B also has some who were not abused as kids but still abused as adults (25% of the table B NOT 25% of all of those in the room).

Table A has the most on it - those who did not abuse - 88% of them are not abusers.

Table B has the least on it - 8.25% meet the criteria of being abused as kids and being an abuser.

While 2.75% meet the criteria for being abusers but not abused as kids.

You have misunderstood as not all who were in the study were abusers. YOU have labelled ALL as abusers which they were not. It specifically says the majority are not abusers.

Why did you label all 100 as abusers as the study clearly says that 88% of them were not. So 88 out of 100 were not?

It is 100 people not 100 abusers. Your mate was the one who misrepresented it as he/she never read the study.

At no point did that study say they interviewed only abusers. They said that of the sample 88% were not abusers.

This woman is 24 years old and given a 10 year sentence. She could be out before then. This gives her at least 6 years to conceive another child which she does not deserve.

Anyone who is done for child neglect/manslaughter/assisting to these should be sterilised.

@schmeler Good grief. I suspect even if Sir Ian Diamond were to explain it you, you'd still argue with him until you were blue in the face.

You explained it wrong. The study clearly said that not all were abusers. Why did you say they were when it clearly said that most were not? As stated by your good friend too...

You just didn't understand the data that was shared and assumed all were abusers but it very clearly states that the vast majority are not abusers. You chose to ignore that, that is on you not me.

Which study? Many studies have been cited in the past day or so. My analogy was not meant to replicate the findings or methods of a specific study, it was to demonstrate the concept of relative risk in simple terms since you seem to be struggling with it a great deal.

You have a very poor understanding of statistics and research. The fact is, that out of the people who did abuse , the majority WERE abused as children. Which makes your claim that people who were abused as children are LESS likely to become abusers themselves, absolute fiction.

Let's put it this way . You look at 100 people , the vast majority of them do not have lung cancer. Out of those who have lung cancer, 75% are smokers. Does smoking increase your risk of getting lung cancer? Yes or no?

Yours was trying to explain the data from the study being disputed and you waded in and got it wrong. Mine also talked about risk factors as you are claiming that 75% of almost all teenage girls (75%) so 75% of 75% are abusers and 75% of 99.3% of women are abusers.

That is quite the claim using your analogy and those stats do not make sense. Nope 74.475 % of all females are not abusers but you just said that 75% of all who are abused are abusers. Nope they are not. Then using your stats for males - 75% of 70% of boys which means 52.5% of boys as teens are abusers and then added onto the 16% which means that by adulthood 68.5% of males are abusers. So your claim is nationally that 74.475% of girls and 68.5% of males are abusers = 71.5% of the population are abusers of just children. Then add on their abuse to adults....and you actually think that the majority of the population are abusers? Well into the 70% bracket of all adults? Makes no sense at all.

I showed you that there are different categories:
Abused and abuser
Abused and not abuser
Not abused and abuser
Not abused and not an abuser.

The biggest one is abused and not an abuser. Meaning the risk is low for them to go onto being an abuser as this is the most likely outcome when you have been abused. You are saying that out of almost all females 75% of females are abusers which is wholly inaccurate. 74.475% of females are not abusers in the UK.

Maybe 74.475% of your mates are but that nationally doesn't tally up!

I do not. No one is saying they were not abused as children. I actually said they were abused but the majority did not become abusers. Learn to read.

People are not more than 50% chance of becoming an abuser if they were abused. As not more than 50% of those abused do not go onto being an abuser.

As they are less than 50% of those abused go onto being that means it is less likely than likely. Basic understanding of words. Not sure you know what likely and less likely means.

You oddly changed your stats now so lets just change them to what you originally said with the tables that 75% of all who are abused will abuse.

75% of smokers getting lung cancer is a different statement to out of all lung cancer cases 75% of them are smokers. Now you are suddenly swapping your statements and your new analogy doesn't match what you said before.

So lets put it to how you stated it with the kids. You said that 75% of smokers will get lung cancer as you said 75% of abuse victims will abuse. However the data says that 88% of those 'smokers' will not so again your 75% is of what is left not of the whole amount. Going back to 4 year old maths of parts and wholes again and basic understanding of there being different parts AND parts of parts.

So 75% of smokers will get lung cancer using your analogy and you said 75% of abuse victims will be abusers despite data saying 88% will not as not all will smoke and not all will get lung cancer.

They therefore have a 88/100 chance of not getting it and 8/100 chance of getting it.

So they are less likely to not get it than are likely to get it. More ppl will NOT have lung cancer than will have. Not quite sure why you assume that most ppl who smoke will get lung cancer as that is not the case. It is a false statement that most who smoke will get cancer - and no you didn't say that but I am correcting your mistakes when you are creating a new analogy and then using the percentages to mean different things so I am making sure it is used as you said with the abuse analogy.

One is biological change which is out of control and one is a choice and shows there is control throughout.

Like saying chances of getting chicken pox and choosing a lolly in a shop - one is out of your control and based on changes internally and one is a choice. Abuse is a choice and most abuse victims choose not to however you state most abuse victims do - 74.475% of the female population according to you!

Jesus Christ

Thanks @SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice for posting data completely debunking the fictitious claim by @schmeler that people who were abused are less likely to abuse.

@schmeler do you realise that you are doing child abuse victims a disservice by insisting on your fantasy in the face of hard evidence? If you do work in safeguarding as you have implied, then your delusion that parents who were abused are less of a risk to their children than other parents will drive decisions that then expose children to additional danger.

Why are you changing the way you are using stats because you know that writing 75% of all smokers will get lung cancer is bullshit.

You said 75% of abuse victims will be abusers. So will 75% of all smokers get lung cancer - nope they will not. Also do smokers have a choice if lung cancer grows inside their body or not like they have a choice to punch someone or not?

Seems like a daft analogy when one is a choice and one is not.

Maybe a better option would be out of all lung cancer survivors (abuse survivors) a % will choose to harm others with their cigarettes such as burning someone with it on their arms etc.

I mean I didn't say any of those things, but sure.

Speaking of maths , you remind me of the kid that answered pink to any maths question.

Shame i'm still biting and that this thread got derailed, because only by looking at whys and trying to identify patterns and looking for solutions will any real change happen.

So those who have had the trauma of lung cancer are more likely to abuse others with cigarettes? Really?

Not quite sure how that links but hey ho! Apparently correlation equals causation and ppl have no control over hitting someone or starving them. Excuses, excuses!

Also maybe look up more likely and less likely. The two are linked. If you are more likely to do one thing then the other is less likely. So if you are more likely to not abuse then you are less likely to abuse. Opposites - 4 year old English.

Do you realise you are falsely accusing the majority of females in the country of being abusers which is shocking for you to say almost 75% of females are abusers and certainly no idea why you are saying that you have proof of this as that is certainly not in any of those studies.

I said they are less likely to abuse than not to abuse. It is a comparison - I am not sure you understand that. That is not the same as saying they are less of a risk than others or more of a risk to others. The two statement mean different things.

You again are lacking basic understanding of what is being said and again suggesting that puts them at risk is also quite a statement and one that could get you in deep shit if you are making defamatory statements that I will make decisions that put kids at risk as that is in writing and is wholly untrue and you have made that public. Not a wise move. Not at all.

So no comparing a group that are less likely than more likely is making a basic comparison and not making any statement about risk factors at all as I haven't discussed risk factors.

Quite the fabricator aren't you? Now calling me mental and fabricating mental illness is what abusers do when they want to silence someone - it also shows how easily ppl will abuse others and how it is a choice behaviour. Or are you saying you lacked autonomy over your fabrication then?

I wonder what is in it for that poster, what is this all about? Sure as hell isnt about protecting children or supporting parents to parent safely.

Do you understand the concept of more likely and increased risk? These are not certainties or absolutes or claims of "all x will y".

Abuse and/or trauma will make some more LIKELY (not a certainty though) to have their brain chemistry altered, to suffer from addiction , mental health issues, be incarcerated etc. These things CAN(not will) be risk factors to a child raised by such a parent.

Whys - I said that - choice. There is no lacking of autonomy in an abusers actions. They are purposeful and they are calculated and show control not lack of.

Solutions would be to hold them to account not excuse them and say it is because they were abused so we just pander to them and let them off the hook to do worse and more harmful things in future which is what excusing them does.

Think about it - murder and rape are not entry level crimes. They happen because that person made a choice and each time they chose to commit a crime, society excused it - they had suffered as a child, they didn't mean it, they lost control, they were pushed to it etc. This empowers them to do more and more and they feel empowered that they will not get held to account as they know that most of society will excuse it and say well they were abused as a kid so they couldn't help it. Bullshit they could. They make a choice each time. And instead of wiping arses and pandering to abusers we should hold them to account instead of your 'there there' approach.