(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?

Absolutely being a single woman is looked down upon. I'm a single mother. I have zero intention of being in a relationship whilst my daughter is growing up. A lot of people can't get their heads around that.

I have friends and people at work tell me "Oh you never know what's around the corner." Yes I do, it's me and my child.

"Not all men are bad you know." I know. I have very nice men in my family and as friends. But there will not be a man in my house whilst my daughter is a child and teen.

And the pitying ones who think it's a shame and I should give someone a chance and lower my standards.

They should not be being used. If they are then they shouldn't be. ACEs aims to predict human behaviour and we cannot predict it. They haven't read the study if they've extended the list as the list was never meant to be used in that way. It was stolen. So what they are doing is stealing academic work and adding to it without understanding it. The creators have said it is never to be used in this way.

ACEs isn't strength based. It is deficit based. It is saying if this happened to you you will have a life of utter shite. That is not true nor is it accurate.

So using the new model, if someone has been in Syria...what do you predict about them? They're going to beat up their partner or kid as a result l? It's bullshit.

Males are more likely to admit to being abused. Data shows when it comes to sexual abuse 19% of males report and 16% of females. Likely because it is the norm for women and it happens hundreds of times so they never bother.

Having ACEs doesn't make you more likely at all to be abusive. Bullshit. You've watched that video and that is laughable that's what you've taken from it. That video is shocking and so pathetic! It ignores domestic abuse and has so much bullshit in it how it got passed I'll never know.

There is no predisposition for aggression. They choose that behaviour. They are in full control. You are now excusing it as though they do not have control at all. Every single person who abuses is in full control of their actions. There is no predisposition. There is only choice.

So you're saying most who work in safeguarding kids are abusers? That is one huge statement and wholly untrue and quite defamatory.

ACEs do not make you an abuser or more likely to be an abuser. ACEs cannot predict human behaviour. There is no crystal ball that comes with ACEs. You are wrongly labelling abuse victims as abusers and saying they are all now potential abusers as you lack understanding.

Do you support babies taken off mothers at birth and women who have suffered in the past (almost all) should have their kids removed as precaution? Should only.0.7% of women keep their babies?

Logically I think it must be explainable in some ways (being abused themselves or else vulnerable in some other way). But since having children, I just can't feel any sympathy for them.

Not protecting your child from harm from a person you brought into their lives is unforgivable. I don't think there's ever any coming back from that.

My children run to me for comfort whenever they are scared or hurt. The thought of those children hoping for their mum to save them is just about the most heartbreaking thing I can think of. It's irredeemable behaviour.

It doesn't excuse it, but it might go some way explain it.Clearly he still had a 'hold' over her, and the toxic and dysfunctional lifestyle and behaviours were reignited when she re-connected with him.

Considering it is a known risk factor for abuse for a child to have a step parent and a child being 40 times more likely to be abused of they live with adults who are not their biological parents I don't believe it's true that only 19% of child abuse is carried out by parents partners.

I genuinely find it horrifying how many people are willing to explain away child abuse with SEN, grooming, low self esteem etc.

The bottom line is that being a mum is hard work, being a single mum even more so. It's thankless and crying babies, tantrumming toddlers, sassy seven year olds test all of our patience. The difference is that most people, mums and dads, are able to put that in context. To recognize this little human is learning, they will make mistakes, they are vulnerable. It is our job as parents to be help them navigate this, as kindly as possible, ultimately to keep them safe.

Going to the pub with your boyfriend is always going to be more fun than watching In The Night Garden for the eleventh time that day, or clearing up after your potty training 2 year old. Every day, most parents put their own wishes second and the needs of their child above a good night out.

Some people sadly just aren't willing to do this. Excusing it with poverty, ACEs, SEN etc is frankly patronizing to all the people living with similar, who don't neglect and abuse their kids.

It reminds me of Nimco Ali confronting well-meaning middle class, white people who excuse FGM with "It's their culture, who am I to comment"..."What?! You wouldn't accept this against a white girl, but it's okay if they're black".

If it's not okay for a "naice" middle class mum to go to the pub with her dead daughter in a buggy, why patronize and implicitly insult those with SEN or ACES by saying it is okay for them.

Some are abusers themselves.

Some are mentally ill/disabilities/low IQ.

Some are addicts (alcohol,drugs) and only aware of their next hit.

Some continue the violent/toxic cycle they've learned through trauma and abuse , by parents, a partner or both.

Some will be a mix of all of these.

That's if you want more than "they're a monster". They're not excuses, they're reasons.

The study you linked to appears to have taken place in Canada and the article is dated 1985. The stats I gave were the most up to date from the ONS for the UK. I wouldn't necessarily expect for current data to support what was the case 40 years ago.

Living in extreme poverty doesn't equal not being brought up in a loving household. Being poor doesn't have any reference to lack of love at all. Being abused in school sexually as 90% of females are doesn't have a thing to do with your home life. Being bullied doesn't mean you grow up in a household that isn't loving or there are poor role models.

Do you think living in poverty means having parents who are poor role models who do not love their kids? Living in poverty is an adverse experience for children and families that are living in poverty mostly love their kids and nurture them and are just in shit circumstances. That is disgustingly classist to say that they do not live in a loving nurturing household with good role models.

Do you assume that when you are sexually assaulted your genes change suddenly? If so how? Which genes and what changes?

Abuse is not about lacking emotional regulation - you are excusing it and suggesting they lack control. Abusers are in full control of their emotions and actions. It is purposeful and a choice. Stop excusing abuse. Also why are you friends with an abuser?

I work in a children's services type role with people who are probably quite similar to these two- actually in the same locality CYPS dept, which makes it feel all the more shocking as it's so close to home....I also live 20 mins from and have recently stayed at one of the holiday parks where they abused the little girl :(

Not saying that Chelsea Gleason meets this criteria for definite, but I've worked with numerous young female DV victims who idolise the most horrible of partners and prioritise them above their lovely innocent children continuously.
Many will come across 'nice girls', just like this one did before entering such a disastrous relationship....passive people pleasers who are outwardly caring, gentle and good with kids and post happy snaps of them on social media appearing cheerful and well cared for. You can't usually fault them in their public interactions with their child, which makes proving their inability to be good parents in all areas difficult.

The undercurrent of danger can be difficult to spot with such women because of the above....they rarely come across as 'bad people or bad parents' in the traditional sense.And they are very good at putting on a front and covering things up (learnt behaviour to protect themselves)

Yet they are like puppets on strings with the partners and anything goes, including losing their child from their care or letting the partner harm them...anything to avoid conflict or rejection with the partner.I don't think that it's even always because they are desperately in love with them- often i think it's because they grew up with a parent/father figure who was violent/ aggressive and taught them that men/older adults are dominant over both young women and children, and they have to do as they say and passively go along with it 'or else' there will be problems for them.(This is also where disguised compliance can come in with professionals)
Some people who have experienced that grow up and realise how wrong that is, and break the cycle, but sadly many others do not and remain in 'victim mode' well into or throughout adulthood.
Someone in victim mode (basically child mode) will not be able to properly contain the needs or feelings of another child, in order to protect them.
(The PAC model of transactional analysis explains this better)

Despite all that though, as a devoted mother of a child of a similar age, I cannot really comprehend this mother's extreme behaviours....allowing such a high level of sustained abuse which she admits she knew may kill the child, and then the depraved way she seemed to calmly push her dead child around in the pushchair in a 'carrying on as normal' way, smiling with her partner and then matter of factly messaging her friend to explain the situation do make it hard to beleive she ever really cared about that little girl, and was not just as evil and dysfunctional as the man.

Males are more likely to admit to being abused. Data shows when it comes to sexual abuse 19% of males report and 16% of females.

Can you provide a source for your data please? It's well established in research that males are significantly less likely to disclose sexual abuse than females, so I'd be really interested to know your source so I can see the data and the methodology myself.

You clearly have experience and I'm sure you're right about these types of women. However, not all are passive, vulnerable puppets. There are many mothers who are equally as abusive as their partners. I've met some.

The source is the ONS.

It is well established that women are significantly less likely to report as it happens so very often to women. It happens hundreds of times to most women day in day out and women do not report. It is not even seen as sexual abuse when it comes to women which is the issue. It is just seen as part of life.

The source is the ONS

Which specific publication please?

It is well established that women are significantly less likely to report as it happens so very often to women.

In your previous post you were talking about admitting rather than reporting. Can you provide sources this too please?

These quotas to let off male perpetrators, can you direct me to where this is published? And by “let off” do you mean pre or post conviction? And how does this disprove my comment that your data doesn’t prove what you say it does as the exact same data could also simply mean that male abusers are caught more frequently than female abusers?

On the “data isn’t even between the sexes at all” you have offered up an unsubstantiated statistic of 99.3% of boys are not sexually assaulted before age 18 (the NSPCC statistics are very different). Again this is an issue with the data not showing what you think it does in this case because most child abuse is not child sexual abuse.

Hang on, you have said males/females and now men/women regarding sexual assault. How do these statistics you said you found on ONS relate to overall child abuse? Can you provide a link also to where it says that sexual assault “happens hundreds of times to most women day in day out and women do not report..”

Using what is obviously hyperbole makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say and what statistical evidence you have read to give you the impression that most women are being sexually assaulted almost daily.

Yes it is well publicised by the CPS that they have a quota to fudge conviction data. Baroness Chakrabati reported the shame of this being discovered.

Let off as in there is substantial evidence (film footage or confessions etc) and they are let off as in the police say NFA purposely to ensure that conviction data shows a high %.

99.3% of boys are not sexually abused but the poster said that they were as this is the level for girls under 18. That is not the case. Most sexual abuse is by other kids in schools. 52% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are other kids as sexual abuse is so rife in schools now. We ignore child on child abuse mostly and attribute abuse to just being from the parents. Sexual abuse is rife in schools. Ofsted report the levels as through the roof.

Sorry - my bad for using different words. Males/females. I am so wrong for using words in such a way. I need to learn to communicate better. My bad.

Nope I didn't say it happens daily for most women. Sorry if I need to explain it to you.

Females (my bad) are groped on the tube, get jack russelled in bars, get flashed at etc. This is the norm. For some it happens more than others but it is routine for many. It is not seen as sexual abuse. Nor is it often reported. Hope this clarifies my shitty behaviour and lack of communication skills.

I do not have it saved on my phone. Admitting means to disclose. Sorry for my lack of communication skills and using synonyms.

Ok, can you please provide a link to this well published quota? And how it is only applied to male perpetrators of ? Are you still hyper focused on the rarest type of child abuse—>sexual abuse?

“99.3% of boys are not sexually abused but the poster said that they were as this is the level for girls under 18.”

Sorry what? Are you saying that 99.3% of girls suffer child sexual abuse? Or repeating that 99.3% of boys do not suffer child sexual abuse? Where are you reading this? It doesn’t match the NSPCC stats on child sexual abuse.

Finally, I will repeat that you cannot use statistics surrounding child sexual abuse to make assertions about all child abuse. In fact, child sexual abuse is the rarest and only form of child abuse where known/believed female victims significantly outnumber male victims.

Ok I actually didn’t say daily, but “almost daily” as I was toning down your saying it happens “day in and day out” to most women. The phrase “day in and day out” literally means daily: done or happening every day for a long period of time**.

I know not to take you literally, that you are grossly exaggerating but it is hard to know what your point is?

Yes, adult women experience too much sexual harassment, but how does that support your view that girls are abused far more often than boys when it comes to all forms of child abuse?

It was reported by the BBC, Law society, End violence against women, the guardian etc. Nope not hyper focused on it being rare as it isn't rare.

Yes I am saying that as that is what data shows. Child sexual abuse is common. Kids being sent child porn is the norm these days and sad that it is ignored and called rare when 75% of girls have been sent child porn. 70% have been asked to make child porn. It is certainly not rare at all.

I am not making assertions about all child abuse at all. I am responding to comments about it and then you are hyper focusing on my comments not theirs. Why is that?

so 75% of children being shown child porn is rare? Jesus Christ!

@OutWithTheMule I think the judge summed up the reasons well in his remarks. The mother is pathetic, desperate and needy. Sadly some mothers, particularly if very young, see their only achievement in life as having a child and a man. It doesn't matter if the man is the child's father - it's having someone to call a boyfriend. I imagine the mother in this case may well have initially seemed a good mother, but once the initial baby cuteness novelty factor wears off and the reality of a talking, running about little person kicks in, I guess it's easier to overlook the fact that this child is still the top priority and needs to come first.

When the mother had nothing else in her life - no other achievements, job, skills, sense of self worth - I suppose they cling even more to a man.

I correct it as females. Sexual abuse applies to all females. Not just those above 18.

Why did you call sexual abuse, harassment? That is minimising it when it is abuse not harassment. Touching someone sexually is abuse.

I never said that is my view. You said it was my view.