DV: Advice from someone who turned their R around (so worth it)

[Abitwobblynow]

This is an extract from KIM COOPER's book 'Through the Looking Glass' It is available on download and you search narcissismcured.com The comment at the end is from her now-grown-up husband explaining things from his point of view and what her behaviour did for him.

Step 4. If he is Intimidating Call The Police
Again, when you call the police, don?t expect miracles or be overly emotional with them. If they ask what you want them to do, say, ?I want you to tell him what the consequences will be if he continues to intimidate/threaten/assault me.? If he runs away when the police come, you can still talk to them and make sure it is on record and that he knows you reported it. Still, you need to insist that they talk to him directly about the consequences of his behaviour. While they are talking to you, try to do it out of his earshot but where he can still see you, so he is left wondering what has been said. (Say, ?Can I talk to you over there?? and point to where you want to move the conversation). This is a really important point that the police taught me. One officer talked to me for twenty minutes, leaving Steve waiting where he could see us. He said, ?See, he is wondering now what we are talking about and let him wonder!?
You need to let him know that you will not tolerate emotional or physical intimidation and that he is going to have to deal with the consequences, not you. If you have already gone in to the police and spoken to the head of D.V. (domestic violence) it will help a lot. Just knowing this person?s name will make the police attending respect you better. In my case I got an AVO (apprehended violence order) on Steve (where he could still remain living with us) and this was very worthwhile. This was in Australia and I don?t know if they have something similar where you live but I hope so. Once the order is in place, if he intimidates or hits you again, he will go straight to jail. If he needs to go to jail to see you are serious about this boundary, so be it. You mustn?t try and protect him from the consequences of his bad behaviour.
The court brought us back three times on the assault charge that precipitated the order. I found this frustrating, but in retrospect it was important. Each time they said Steve was not ready and had to prepare better. This taught him that his bad treatment of me was more serious than he had thought. The male judge and police officers in the court room looked very disapproving and that helped too! Many men who mistreat their wives grew up with men who did the same, so Steve seeing these men who were respected and in authority really disapproved of his behaviour was a big wake up call. Their disapproval really sunk in and made a big change in him. The judge also thanked me for my time and even commented how nicely groomed I was. This might have been because I had made the effort to make friends with the police, but whatever reason it was a very good day for me. They made me feel very solid, strong and supported and showed Steve he was on shaky ground.
Some men whose wives assault them do not feel they can get the police to help. If this is your situation, I think it is important that you do. You do not have to play victim in court or with the police, but instead you might want to say that you are concerned about her behaviour and that she needs to learn it is not okay and that you do not want to be forced to restrain her or play policeman in your own home. The truth is that women, just like men, can be very scary and dangerous when they are violent.
The AVO helped us because Steve then knew that if he intimidated, threatened or hurt me again (and in his case one of the provisions of the order was that he could not drink at home or
16
come home if he had been drinking) and I decided to call the police, he would be put straight in jail. This was important. He learned that he no longer had the upper hand and was not going to get away with sweet-talking anyone anymore. The power balance was now swinging in my favour.
If you can get a provision like this (that he can?t come home if he has been drinking, or something very easy to prove) in the AVO, it is really good, then it is not about the police taking sides. Once the AVO is in place, if you call and he is at home and has been drinking, he gets locked up, that?s it, no telling stories. He does not have the chance to charm anyone or provoke a fight, or confabulate and confuse things. I would still let Steve drink, but he knew there was a line in place and what would happen if he crossed it.
Fortunately, I never had to have Steve put in jail, but that was only because he knew I would call without hesitation if he ever tried to intimidate me again.
This will be a big disincentive to your partner continuing to disrespect you, but you have to be prepared to go through with it. Again, the only reason I didn?t have to have Steve put in jail was because he saw without a doubt I would do it. This is really important - as threats won?t work, he has to know you mean it, and that will probably involve you having the police over a few times. Don?t call them as a threat or because you are angry, call them if you feel you need protection. The sooner you do this and the calmer you are about it (?Honey, I don?t know how to handle you when you are like this so I think I am going to need to get the police here to talk to you?) the more effective this will be. You might also choose to quietly call first, then explain this, or he may try to stop you.
He might tell you he is not in control of his behaviour, but I am telling you that he only intimidates or puts people down who he thinks are weaker than he is. He?s not insulting big guys in bars, he makes decisions about who he can get away with this behaviour with. You need to become the wrong person for him to pick on.
This was quite troubling for me. The experience of court was horrible. I realised that I had made a terrible mistake and that the law was there to punish me. The D.V. officer from the police explained the terms of my Apprehended Violence Order and they were that I was to obey the terms or be thrown in jail. His words were simple and matter of fact, ?Prison is a tough place to survive.? That was enough for me, but I DID need to be told. Kim was sad the day we went to court, I could see that she was very disappointed that our relationship had come to this, but she kept a brave face and knew she was doing the right thing. This experience I will remember forever, and I cannot ever have my conviction for ?common assault? overturned. Society, through a magistrate, was able to make a statement to me that my behaviour was unacceptable. I had crossed a boundary that I obviously had no respect for. Steve

There is a pathology that marks out abusive men (people, but mainly men). There is a progression to their behaviours, which is well researched and well documented.

There is usually a pattern of controlling behaviours that make these men identifiable as potentially dangerous, and as potential murderers.

Ken, you don't seem to be aware of these facts? Never heard of DASH?

These same men don't give a shit about their kids, only as a way to hurt their mothers, more often than not. They don't see their family members as fully human in the same way that they are. There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of research and resources on this subject, can I suggest you start informing yourself, instead of coming on here and making a bit of a fool of yourself?

Actually, it's the selfish mothers that use the children as weapons/means of control etc. As 95% of custody goes to the mothers

I agree some mothers are unfair, Ken. But you still seem to be saying that an unfair mother deserves to be murdered. Is that what you really think?

Residence tends to rest with the child's primary carer, which funnily enough is usually their mother. Contact is another matter entirely.

What are you doing here anyway ken? Shouldn't you be scaling a bridge somewhere? Batman costume at the cleaners today?

If my husband had residence of our children and tried to prevent me seeing them I would drag him through the courts to prove my suitability and my childrens beed for me I would become the cafcass officer's dream of a NRP.

What I would not do is murder him.

The court process for custody & divorce is already fair to the father. Ex was violent to me & then to the children (which was what made me leave). He gets contact in a contact centre, my children leading up to contact day and for days after become physically ill from the stress of being forced to have contact with him. But the courts feel this is his right, so we suffer, my eldest spent more time off school last year for sickness due to this than actually attending school, the anxiety manifests itself in her being physically sick & constantly suffering stomach pains. It is all psychological as I've taken her to see countless specialists.

It was her school who noticed the pattern & the school SENCO who finally got my child to vocalise what was frightening her. Her father.

I do think there's a very simple method of elimitating the 'cause' of DV, throw the perpetrator in prison for a good length of time, stop victim blaming assist the victim in restarting their lives give proper support to children of families who have lived within homes where DV was prevalent. Job done.

That isn't the "cause" - of course they are reasons/justifications stated by abusive men. This is because they are going to automatically see any allegations of DV as false (since if they took responsibility for it, they would feel guilt, not anger), and any asset/child contact split as unfair. The only thing which would be fair in an abusive man's mind would be for the woman, his "possession" to stay with him and do exactly as he wishes. Nothing else is good enough.

it is like saying bank robbery is caused by the robber wanting the money so just give them the money. that will remove the cause.

you are talking nonsense and attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

the cause of domestic violence is clear - having a violent abuser in the home.

In my experience, the courts bend over backwards to give patently unsuitable men access to very vulnerable children.

But that is just my experience.

Once my xh saw that the court didn't care what he thought about my mental health, he fucked off, and we haven't seen or heard anything from him since, no birthday or christmas cards, nothing.

This was a man that believed it was ok to rape me and expose his ds to pornography. A man who couldn't be arsed to turn up for the contact he WAS granted. The courts were on HIS side, every step of the way, what I said counted for NOTHING. And his constant taking me to court cost over £20 000. All he had to do was turn up, but even THAT was too much for him, and then I had to explain to a very hurt little boy, why.

I am so glad he has not been in my ds's life. He is lowlife scum who never gave a shit about any of his children.

He did the same thing, it turns out, to his first son from his first marriage.

But as I say, that is just my experience. I wonder what Ms Cooper would have advised?

I agree with your Second post. well, the intentions behind it.

It is very Naive but essentially frmo a good place.

As someone who was in an abusive relationship and now works with abused women much of what you say is true. just saying "leave him" doesn't work. Co dependency is a BIG part of a DV relationship. The abuser intends it to be so that they are better able to abuse for longer, it is why there is usually a drip drip effect in the beginning.

but a book advocating that a woman who is being abused should try to stay and regain control is bloody dangerous.

I also wonder what the Cooper's suggestion would be for dealing with my little girls flashbacks this morning?

If that's true, then why do groups like F4J exist? Why is there an MRM? Are all MRAs abusive?

Actually, it's the selfish mothers that use the children as weapons/means of control etc. As 95% of custody goes to the mothers

With good reason. Firstly because it's usually mothers who stay at home, so it wouldn't make sense for the children to stay with the working parent.

In my case, ex had often threatened to leave with DS. (Of course he wouldn't leave, after all I was working and he wasn't) I still encourage contact (supervised), even though he has threatened to kill me several times, including in front of DS.
Ex has lied in court about not having contact with DS, even though he had been with him the previous day, before threatening to kill me and attacking me in the street after I told someone else to call the police.
Yes, the threat of police really works well.

I know cases where fathers use their children as blackmail weapons.

I think you'll find that in most cases there is good reason for the mother to stop the father having contact.

Abusers all believe that they are "victims". See Adam Juke. There are some free pages on Amazon.

It is a cornerstone of the abusers pathology.

Abusers are just as co dependent as their victims. Possibly more so.

At the core of the abuser, is a very frightened small child, with all the attendant narcissism that that includes.

Maybe that explains f4j playing dress up, and "look at me".

does kens have a posting history or has he joined just to tell us that women who are killed deserve it and the cause of violence and murder is not getting your own way therefore we should let people have their own way and then they won't kill anyone? too knackered for advancing searching personally

I really can''t take Fathers for Justice seriously since the delightful Matt O'Connor quite cheerfully admitted in a national broadsheet that when his ex-wife stopped contact it was because he was drinking heavily and behaving aggressively. That's hardly the work of a selfish mother. I'd say that's the actions of a mother trying her best to protect her children.

1 in 4 women is abused. The figure is disproportionately higher among single mothers at about a third. I'd say that fells two myths: firstly that most women stay (clearly they don't, though it may take them some time to leave); secondly that all these women stopping contact are doing so to 'control' their Xs (sounds to me like they're doing it to safeguard their children).

What about all the fathers who mess about with contact, cancelling at the last minute or even failing to turn up at all. Or those who expect plans to be altered on whatever suits them best, rather than the child. Those who use contact as a means of controlling their Xs. What about the majority of fathers who pay no maintenance, and don't forget that 43% of those who pay via the CSA pay the grand total of £5 a month or are assessed as not having to pay anything at all.

We need a big shake up of contact and maintenance in this country. It would actually help those fathers who ARE denied contact for no good reason too, but it you're talking about the greater good (i.e. what will help the greatest number of children) then the first thing to be tackled should be non-payment of maintenance. If you really believe your child is suffering and not getting to see you, how do you think putting them in poverty is going to help? It doesn't. It is a form of punishment, the vindictiveness of which is a pretty good indication as to why the mother may be preventing contact in the first place.

Sunshine, there are cases when the ex spends the maintenance on herself and not the children. You are right that it needs a shake-up though

And no, I don't hate women nor do I think they deserve bad things that happen to them

Hi all,

Thank you to all who have reported this thread to us.

We wanted to remind you all that we tend not to delete posts on the grounds that they might cause offence (unless they are making a direct personal attack or actually breaking the law).

However, we do delete personal attacks as we ask members to respect each other's opinions even if they don't agree with them.

Having said that, we do respond to reports and if folks are posting to inflame then we will mail them.

Please do read our Talk guidelines.

How many cases?
Do the children starve?

The maintenance is for the children AND their carer, particularly if she (or he) can't get a job because she/he is taking care of the children.

I didn't know details about Matt O'Connor, but found this Independent interview enlightening... www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/matt-oconnor-the-man-behind-fathers4justice-406610.html

married Sophie at 27. He accepts, now, that he was "a lousy husband". He drank. He womanised. He sometimes wasn't home for days. He was, perhaps, his own father all over again. The marriage went pear-shaped, Sophie asked for a divorce and sought, through the family court, to cut his contact with their sons to a minimum. "I thought the family court would be even-handed, but every time I went I got screwed."
He stopped drinking. He started to rebuild his career. Sophie finally allowed him unregulated access to his sons. He is now close to both of them.

Well, doh.

Abit - how are you? What was the reason for you posting this?