(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?

I know of people who worked with SS and they tell a similar tale.

Fecklessness and multigenerational abuse and violence.

ANY man is better than no man- and getting ( falling) pregnant almost immediately with a new crap man is a given.

Very depressing. Edit: Plus witnessing very disturbing things that remains with them
years after leaving the job.
Child Protection must be a very hard career choice.

It was in 2020 that the creators removed it. It was stolen from their study and made into a framework. It has been misused and has caused harm so the creators said it should never be used to score individuals and it is not trauma informed as many say it is. It is a deficit model which labels ppl for life and they never shake it off. That label follows them and prevents them from doing things as they grow and into adulthood.

i used to work closely with child protection in my previous career, and based on my experiences, I’d say the answer to OP’s question is pretty simple. For many women I worked with and did parenting capacity assessments for, the pain of being on their own and all that entails (I.e trapped with own thoughts, no validation, feelings of emptiness they can’t escape) is so intense, that their entire priority and focus is on alleviating that distress. The goal of easing that pain comes before all else, including their children, their safety, and all rational considerations. Almost in the same way substances can be used in a desperate attempt to avoid painful feelings. The insight is then rarely there that what they are doing to avoid the pain actually makes it worse. It might be there fleetingly, but in the moment, all that matters is not experiencing that loneliness etc. Over time, DV dynamics amplify it. The pain and fear of being alone becomes worse, so there is an increased need to ensure that doesn’t happen. I guess in the same way that if someone lit your foot on fire, your entire focus would probably be on trying to put that fire out and ease the burning in your leg. Underneath the cycle is usually trauma - people with stable and trauma free histories aren’t typically experiencing this acute distress around emptiness and loneliness, and when they may feel it, joining a gym class would be considered a better option than picking up a boyfriend with red flags visible from the space station.

It’s the exact same on Mumsnet often, although to a lesser extent. There are SO many posts from women staying in relationships where their husband or new partner is abusive to them and the children. Even when they could financially and practically leave, they often don’t. The one thing most of those posters seem to have in common, is a history of child abuse and trauma, and a warped sense of love and attachment.

I don't believe that women only allow this because of abuse or trauma.

It is a different ball game when the abusing parent is biological because the other parent can't just pick up the child and go. The abusing parent has access to the child via parental rights and can take the child themselves and not return them or demand access through the courts. The courts then have a lengthy process to remove their parental rights and deny them access if they are found guilty of abuse. When the abuser is just a boyfriend/girlfriend the biological parent can just take the child and go. The boyfriend/girlfriend has not rights, can't demand access and can't just take the child and refuse to return them without being arrested for kidnap and the child forcefully removed.

So it is completely different because if a biological parent is the abuser the other parent has a lot of work to do to remove them from the child's life and the courts may rule that they cannot do that at all and the child continues to be abused but if the abuser is not a biological parent, the biological parent has all the power to stop the abuse, they can just take their child and leave. End of. No courts, no long fight. Just take the child away from the abuser. If they don't do that, they are allowing the child to be abused.

I would never say a woman who has left her abusive husband, tried to get full custody but gets 50/50 and the children are abused during the fathers time are allowing their children to be abused because it's out of their hands. So it is different. One situation the mother allows the child to be abused willingly and in the other she does not.

I don't need to ask the question why men do this in the first place. We know why a lot of men are shit bags.

What I don't know, is how a mother can watch someone abuse their child, and allow it. It makes no sense to me. It is so alien to me that a mother would have no compassion for their own child. And often in these cases the mother is not being abused or afraid of the man, she is often complicit or just turns a blind eye like she did here.

Allowing the death of a child is a crime. This woman was sentenced to 10 years for allowing someone to abuse and kill her child. Because whether you believe women are faultless victims in these situations or not, she did commit a crime by witnessing abuse and allowing it to happen.

Because cock was obviously far more important to her than the life safety and well-being of her baby.
She allowed it to happen. She should have got the same amount of time he did. Like I said kids are often put in danger because their mothers are too busy wanting 🍆. Crude maybe! True nonetheless.

It repulses me too OP, but don't you understand that just like men, some women also lack compassion, empathy, the ability to love?
I remember the case of Baby P. I read all the details (I wish I hadnt). Not only was his mother physically abusive to her children but she allowed her partner and his brother to torture her son.
I felt physically ill when I heard about it and it was very clear to me that his mum just lacked something.
Most of us feel deep love for our children. We'd do anything in our power to protect them. Their pain is our pain. The thought of them being harmed is deeply distressing. Well, Baby P's mother simply didn't have those feelings. I remember thinking she had a big black hole where those feelings of motherly love and protection should have been. There was nothing there.
As to why - I imagine she herself was raised in an abusive home, she was probably unloved by her parents, she probably didn't even know how a loving mother should be.
Not everyone is mentally healthy. Not everyone feels the normal range of human emotions. There are a hell of a lot of very emotionally and mentally damaged people out there, and a lot of them have children when they shouldn't. If you were abused since you were born then there's a chance you won't be a loving parent (not always the case, I know).

You are right, this is not long enough at all. I can't get over the fact she was out in the pub laughing knowing that her little girls dead body was locked in a bathroom. She didn't give a flying fuck.

My mum said the same thing about my violent abusive step dad. She would rather have a man that abused her kids than no man at all. Unfortunately women like her are not uncommon.

I believe that some mothers enjoy abusing their children and moving in an abusive boyfriend gives them the perfect cover for that. If the child dies, the mother can easily pin ALL the abuse on the boyfriend. Unless she is stupid enough to text like minded friends about the abuse and how the child deserves it daily. Abusive men will move in stepmothers/girl friends who get a kick out of participating or watching child abuse and are willing to cover for them.

If a single mother kills their child(ren) we look so so hard for a mental illness to explain it. That mum who strangled her son in bed with a belt- let off and given a hospital order.

We are so unbelieving of the fact that women can be just as violent to a child as a man can. There is no mystery, no complex history of trauma and this and that can possibly excuse these women. They flat out don’t give a shit about their kids or actively hate them and like hurting them.

It’s always interesting to me how women are perceived as having complex reasons for making bad choices, but the same never applies to men. A woman has to have been corrupted, whereas men are just corrupt.

You can also be a victim AND a perpetrator, it isn’t the case that one negates the other. Being a victim of abuse doesn’t automatically lessen someone’s responsibility for their own actions (or inactions). An abusive background may go some way to explain why someone makes the choices they do, but it doesn’t excuse it.

I feel exactly the same about men. I don't think it's normal for a man to want to abuse, torture and kill a child. I think something has to be deeply wrong with any man or woman who does this.

It is a different ball game when the abusing parent is biological because the other parent can't just pick up the child and go. The abusing parent has access to the child via parental rights and can take the child themselves and not return them or demand access through the courts. The courts then have a lengthy process to remove their parental rights and deny them access if they are found guilty of abuse. When the abuser is just a boyfriend/girlfriend the biological parent can just take the child and go. The boyfriend/girlfriend has not rights, can't demand access and can't just take the child and refuse to return them without being arrested for kidnap and the child forcefully removed.

I get what you're saying @OutWithTheMule but that assumes the parent wants to pick up the child and go. For whatever reason, Isabella's mother didn't want to. The same can apply when the abuse is perpetrated by a biological parent. For some it will have nothing to do with the fear of access (which is of course understandable and a terrible predicament), but rather, they will continue to allow it or to perpetrate it because it suits them in some way.

Some mothers, for whatever reason, actively dislike and resent their child or children and enjoy abusing them. My mother was one of those women.

And be sterilized

In many cases these "mothers" have nothing in life. Often they have had a baby to get away from a bad home life. Getting pregnant often means being kicked out by their parents therefore the council find them a place of their own. They have the baby and then reality sets in. The young men have no chance of getting a flat therefore shack up with a single mum that is desperate for company/love. There is no getting to know each other, it's just straight to moving in together.

What is your source for 'in the majority of cases' of child abuse the mother allows her boyfriend to abuse her child, covers it up and lies to the police, please? I was under the impression that there were some cases where this occurred, but I'm shocked by your assertion this is the case in the majority of cases of child abuse. A link to the data would be really helpful to understand if we were looking at a pattern of behaviour on the part of women, or isolated cases, as the first indicates something on a societal level (in a similar way to patterns of male behaviour are a societal problem) the second an individual issue/s with a particular woman or women.

Some are avoidant, they can’t protect their children as they are too busy protecting themselves from reality.

Some use drink/drugs to obliterate reality. Others are just selfish and don’t have a full range of emotions. Narcissistic and personality disorders. Psychopathic and sociopathic. All of which when combined with a violent partner will lead to a high risk environment for the child.

Some are just weak and unable to stand up for the children.

I imagine they allow it for the same reasons the men commit the abuse. A myriad of complex and varied reasons including a history of childhood abuse, mental illness, substance abuse, etc.

It doesn't excuse their crimes. The majority of these people should be locked up up for the rest of their natural lives to protect the public. Still, I do feel that othering them as monsters without attempting to understand any of the hardships they might have suffered that led to them behaving this way is doing their victims a disservice.

The perpetrators are not monsters. Their actions are monstrous but they are, very sadly, human. Without trying to understand why they turned out the way they did we have no hope of ever preventing it happening again.

Well...the family courts awarded my ex-husband 50/50 when my sons were just 3 and 6.
He wasn't abusive though.
He "only"...
Took my purse out of my bag because he didn't want me to have money
Would lock the door if I came home after my "curfew" of 10pm
Tracked me without my consent and often followed me
Told me if I left him nobody would ever want me and I would never see my children again
Told me if I wanted to sleep apart from him it would have to be on the floor
Followed me around the house frequently
Took a considerable amount of my wages from me
Wouldn't let me make my own decisions or choices about anything whatsoever.
So no, not abusive. According to the "professionals" and the family courts.

I wonder whether there may be an element of animal instinct at play.

In the animal kingdom it is fairly common for new dominant males to kill any existing offspring and then impregnate the females with their own.

The females tolerate this and mate with the very males that have killed their offspring.

Perhaps there is a similar instinct at play and (some) women 'accept' that their existing children are a barrier between them and their new mating partner that needs to be removed?

Because they can’t put the needs of their child before their own needs

It’s really as simple as that in many cases.

I think this stands up pretty well, after all civilisation is (arguably) all about supressing/subverting our animal instincts.
If you check out/dissociate then animal instincts are running the show.

Anyone, male or female, convicted of child abuse should be automatically sterilised. This is a hill I will die on.

Alice Munro. 😱