How deprived do you have to be to move in a man into your home a day of ‘knowing’ him on Facebook? *[Content warning: concerns child abuse]

I guess a number of factors are at play.

Substance abuse seems to be on the rise, some of the perpetrators are users, others are dealers. The users are out of control. The dealers use violence to control. There are cultural elements at play also - in some cultures it's considered reasonable for a man to control or discipline their wife or child. Then there's the families and communities where the cycles of abuse have gone on for generations - people don't know what healthy relationships look like and have incredibly low self esteem.

This! So much this!!!!

Every time you say LTB for a relationship involving biological children that is not abusive (including obviously to the children), you increase the chance that the poster's children will be abused by a step father. Food for thought?

Or if you are going to say LTB, make it clear that implicit in that is that you should remain single until your children are adults once you've done it.

I think that is conflating a number of issues.

Women need to raise their standards so they don't get involved with awful men in the first place when it's already clear that they are violent, thick or unpleasant, or even just lazy and misogynistic.

Sometimes this is all hidden until you're involved with someone. I was married to ex-H for years before we had children and he behaved like the model gentleman, shared all housework, etc. His true colours only appeared after the children were born.

Women will have crappy lives if they stay with lazy men who expect them to behave like a house servant (even when there's no abuse), so the advice to leave is correct if they've already discussed the issues, demanded change, even had counselling in some cases but the lazy man won't do his share.

However, another crucial plank of women being able to exert those boundaries - that they will not tolerate awful relationships - is them maintaining financial independence and not giving up careers so that they can exert those choices. We need to educate all young girls about this. And as many PPs have said, there also needs to be far more support for single mothers. Surestart reinstated, and also fix the tax system so that they aren't penalised and taxed more on the same household income than a couple meaning that building financial stability as a single mother is twice as hard, even if you do everything right. Of course compounding the inbuilt disadvantage of having only one parent to do all earning and caring in 24 hours per day by taxing them more as well will lead to negative outcomes, and dependency either on welfare or on men. This is obvious which is why other countries don't financially penalise single mothers in this way: it has terrible outcomes and costs everyone more.

I completely agree that it needs to be made far, far clearer in relationships education what a huge risk it is to children to move an unrelated adult into their house, particularly a man. The statistics need to be hammered home throughout secondary school. In many cases people hop between unsuitable relationships for financial reasons hence the need to sort out the tax system per above. But there should also be a huge social stigma about involving new partners with your children, it should not be normalised.

I'm always shocked at posts on here about "you deserve to be happy", "don't let the children dictate your life" 😒😡 etc. Even on this thread people being called "martyrs" for not moving unrelated men into their children's homes!! It is not normal and it's irresponsible and it should be an instant trigger for an SS assessment. If people must date, they can do that without co-habiting. "LTB" does not mean "shack up with other men". Even in cases where by luck it doesn't result in abuse, it is still hugely psychologically damaging to the child(ren) in most cases. We know this. It's not like there's a shortage of data on the topic.

I find the many posts about how people who grow up in abusive households very upsetting to read. I know that data shows this often happens, but there are also many of us who did who as a result of living through such a childhood ourselves actually become the best parents: often we are actually the single mothers who have left the father at the first sign of abusive behaviour and protect our children fiercely and would never, ever involve an unrelated male in their lives at all let alone move one into their home. The very people being called "extreme" and "martyrs". So while their own chaotic and abusive childhoods might be a factor in these women's behaviour, it's certainly not a sufficient condition: other factors must be at play. Perhaps very low IQ, perhaps sociopathy.

Whatever the reason, I hope these people both suffer a very painful and terrifying death like they inflicted on Lola.

Supported accommodation like this…?

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2020/10/23/safeguarding-review-launched-into-death-of-toddler-at-supported-housing/

That woman left a defenseless baby alone for days with mo food or water knowing that she would die, so that she could go and get drunk. It was clear that she was not capable of being a parent even if she'd had more support and that poor child should have been removed at birth.

Social services are also a disgrace.

As a traumatised, homeless 16 year old they advised me that I should go and get pregnant and have a baby, then I would be housed. Obviously I didn't.

Sadly they don't appear to have changed much in the intervening years.

Exactly. You hear loud noises in the middle of the night, your child is crying. And a person who you know has injured the child multiple times already says "oh it's all fine" so you go back to bed?!? Not remotely believable, unless she is a sociopath or psychopath herself.

These people are both absolute scum and whatever "issues" they had are irrelevant really. Those children should have been taken away long before.

If the LA had had to explicitly tell her not to move random drug-addicted men she didn't know into her children's home, then clearly this was an existing issue. Yet despite support she did it again. The house was disgusting. It was plain as day that she was neither safeguarding nor caring for the children long before they killed Lola.

Sadly because children do not vote funding for appropriate services and care isn't a priority. The adults responsible for them won't campaign for it. So the rest of us need to pressure MPs to ensure that funding for children's services is provided. That the penalisation of single parents through tax is removed so single mothers have a genuine route out of poverty without involving random men in their lives, that children living in situations like this are removed far, far earlier. In Denmark the children who grow up in children's homes have outcomes on a par with those living with parents. So it can be done. People get all outraged when reading these stories but how many have written to MPs demanding these tax changes and a much lower threshold for child removal and Denmark-style children's homes so that these children can be removed and have a decent life? That's how you break the cycle.

Very easy to wave your hands in the air and say it can't be fixed but it can. And for those parents who aren't complete monsters but are irresponsible and selfish, knowing that their children would be removed permanently at a far lower threshold might focus their minds and encourage them to prioritise their children's needs and not move unrelated adults into their homes. And if they do, well, then the children have a proper escape route and they can be left to continue their scummy lives alone.

It's just horrifying what some kids go through. But in a way is it a wonder that (those that survive) grow up to be really fucked up adults themselves? Not that that is an excuse, but surely it contributes....

Please read my posts. I know many do, but it is so offensive to those of us who survived horrific childhoods and have become the most fiercely protective and committed parents to our children for this precise reason, when people make comments like this as though it's somehow an inevitability that abuse survivors will become abusers. It isn't.

Other posters here with similar experiences have also shared the same.

Urgh. I knew this was going to be brought up and lazily didn't address it, which i now regret.

To clarify, OF COURSE not all abuse victims become abusers or bad people. All I am saying is that, surely, it is understandable why people who have awful childhoods, where they are not cared for or learn what love is, where their own development is curtailed because of bad parenting, turn out to be less than ideal parents themselves.

Controversial opinion, but when Nicola Sturgeon was “apologising” to mothers of forced adoptions from back in the day I had a random thought flash through my head that maybe things haven’t really progressed since then and there should be a return of it as in a lot of cases we have had kids being dragged up for years by immature parents with no idea and end up with cases like this. 😢

Yes, I know it’s not every young parent before I get started on.

Urgh. I knew this was going to be brought up and lazily didn't address it, which i now regret.

To clarify, OF COURSE not all abuse victims become abusers or bad people. All I am saying is that, surely, it is understandable why people who have awful childhoods, where they are not cared for or learn what love is, where their own development is curtailed because of bad parenting, turn out to be less than ideal parents themselves.

But I had a childhood like that. Obviously it did huge damage and left huge scars.

I am an excellent parent. I provide everything for my children and they have a safe and caring home full of love and laughter. They are my absolute priority and exactly because of my childhood, now that I'm a lone parent, I would never, ever even consider introducing them to a man let alone moving one into their home. I am quite happy to be single and will remain so.

Many other posters have told similar stories on this thread.

So no, awful childhoods and abuse and neglect does not necessarily mean people become "less than ideal parents".

So no, awful childhoods and abuse and neglect does not necessarily mean people become "less than ideal parents".

I know. I never said it did. But for those that are, you can understand why it might have. We all know how important childhood is for how we develop as adults and we often repeat family dynamics. You are a great parent, that's great for you and for your kids. Sounds like you have overcome a lot of adversity. Had you not been, had you struggled, I would have understood how your childhood might have impacted you.

"So no, awful childhoods and abuse and neglect does not necessarily mean people become "less than ideal parents".

I know. I never said it did.
^
But you did:
^
All I am saying is that, surely, it is understandable why people who have awful childhoods, where they are not cared for or learn what love is, where their own development is curtailed because of bad parenting, turn out to be less than ideal parents themselves.

Maybe you meant "in some cases". But per my earlier posts, obviously it isn't a sufficient condition because it isn't the case for many, many people who live through such childhoods, quite the opposite. And then on top of that we are stigmatised in this way.

Ultimately it doesn't matter why these monsters brutalised this little girl. What matters is what measures should be put in place to protect children like her and make this a very, very rare occurrence, which sadly at the moment it isn't. My earlier post described how that could be achieved. It's not an insoluble problem. Things will never be perfect and mistakes will happen but there are changes that can be made to the tax, social services and children's care system that will make such tragedies much rarer and will also give such children an opportunity to have a stable childhood and good life outcomes on a par with other children in society. The fact is that the UK public doesn't pressure its politicians to do this, so it doesn't happen.

This "mother" was 30.

It boils down to self responsibility and character. Some people are stronger than others and some people are more easily led or the party type. There's many many variants here and unfortunately there is not 1 solution fits all.

There is only so much SS can do. Once you are an adult the expectation is that you look after your kids. It doesn't always happen hence OP.

I honestly don't know what could be done because there's just so many issues in this case. Where was the woman's own family and support network? Thr list is endless it really is sad.

Never mind trying to unpick if the mother or randomtwatshegotofffacebook is to blame, why didn't any of the medical, social or child services pick up on this situation before she was beaten to death?

Lack of funding? High work loads? What?

There will always be twats, some of them will have children.

We need to do something about protecting the kids

But I didn't. And even if my first post suggested I did I clarified it quickly, yet you keep insisting otherwise.

Childhood and development of course have an impact on the adults we become. It's not abused = abuser, but of course it is understandable that someone who was not taken care of or loved may in some cases find it tricky to in turn take care of their kids, because they have not learnt those skills, or because certain behaviours or patterns have been normalised for them.

And you know, it does matter why. Because spotting it and intervening isn't always easy - as we see time and time again - so it would be much better to prevent by helping people who lack them (due to their own childhood, or otherwise) develop the skills (or unlearn certain behaviours) that might put them or their children at risk.

@Nepmarthiturn you've summed things up so eloquently. It's shocking really, that even on a thread about a tiny defenseless toddler being murdered by her stepfather, those of us who have broken a cycle of abuse and are chosing to remain single to protect our children are called extreme and martyrs. I'm usually not one to tell people how to live their lives, but I wish this choice was seen as a sensible one and that moving unrelated males in was seen as what it is, a dangerous and risky decision.

And you know, it does matter why. Because spotting it and intervening isn't always easy - as we see time and time again - so it would be much better to prevent by helping people who lack them (due to their own childhood, or otherwise) develop the skills (or unlearn certain behaviours) that might put them or their children at risk.

I agree. It does not matter why these people do this. And in many cases no amount of trying to teach them "skills" will help. In this case the woman had plenty of such support and ignored it.

It is easy to spot. The problem is that the threshold for removal is much, much too high. It was obvious that this child and many others like her was not properly safeguarded yet she was left there.

Moving any unrelated adult into your home with children should instantly trigger a safeguarding assessment and ongoing regularl monitoring at intervals by multi-agencies.

Fund children's services properly per my earlier posts and provide nurturing care home environments that are more like a private school but with additional pastoral care and long-term therapy etc, like in Denmark, and them children in care have equivalent outcomes to those raised by their parents.

And for those single parents who aren't beyond help, stop penalising them financially on top of the inbuilt disadvantage so that they can provide for their children alone without paying double the tax on the same household income. And as @Hubblebubble says normalise that non-parent partners should not be living with you if you have full or part residency of a child.

I agree entirely. I am glad there are others who did. This hand-wringing and refusal to address the problem even though there areways to do so is so frustrating and is repeated every time something like this is publicised.

Sorry first paragraph of that post was quoting @Itsbytheby

I thought you'd said "it does matter why".

It really doesn't.

What matters is better prevention measures that we know - from copious international data - would make such cases far rarer.

Exactly.

@Nepmarthiturn I agree with you but I would argue that inviting a stranger to come live with you and your kids stems from lacking skills or judgement in the first place.

And this:

Fund children's services properly per my earlier posts and provide nurturing care home environments that are more like a private school but with additional pastoral care and long-term therapy etc, like in Denmark, and them children in care have equivalent outcomes to those raised by their parents.

Is pretty much what I am saying. Help children who are in less than ideal home situations have a chance to make a better future for themselves. Support them to learn the skills they need to take care of themselves and their kids and grow up to be happy and well balanced individuals with good opportunities.

The things we are saying aren't mutually exclusive. But you've somehow decided I hate and blame abuse victims for all ills. And I don't know why you are addressing me about single parents, I've said nothing against them (generally) or you as a single parent (specifically) at all.

You are a great parent, that's great for you and for your kids. Sounds like you have overcome a lot of adversity. Had you not been, had you struggled, I would have understood how your childhood might have impacted you.

We don't need to extend understanding to parents, adversity or not. We need to protect children.