Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

just found DH in DD's cot

232 replies

sleeplessbunny · 08/09/2012 01:49

where he had passed out drunk. I am still shaking. My first thought was "where is DD?" as I couldn't see her, he was taking up the whole cot. She was fine, curled up in the tiniest corner and hidden from view under (D)H's leg, but still.

There is no point trying to talk about it with him until the morning (or later) but I need to vent and try and get my own thoughts straight. This might be an epic post.

He has always drunk too much, it has got worse over the years though and now it is "normal" for him to have at least 1 bottle of wine every night. On a night like that it doesn't even cross my mind that he is drinking too much, his behaviour is usually fine, or at least unremarkable.

Since DD (1 yo) was born, he has given up smoking which he found very difficult and I think has contributed to his drinking getting worse. He used a particular book/technique to help him stop smoking and in the last couple of weeks he has bought the equivalent book for stopping drinking (but hasn't read it yet) so I am hopeful that he at least has the intention to stop. He has said on a few occasions that he wants to be able to cut down his drinking, but tbh I try not to engage him in conversation about either smoking or drinking as it always tends to end with an argument because our expectations are so different.

Anyway, obv tonight he drank way more than usual. I'm not entirely sure why, but SIL (his sister) and DN are here to visit, perhaps he just got carried away. But he was the only one drinking.

He must have come to bed about 11 ish (I had gone to bed early) but at around midnight he got up to go to the loo, made loads of noise, turned on all the lights etc etc. I was inwardly groaning and just waiting for him to come back to bed. Must have drifted off again and woke up with a start hearing weird noises on the baby monitor, went to investigate and found him sprawled in her cot.

Is it time for me to make a stand? I am so scared for DD right now, I am just thinking of all the other awful things he could have done without realising/thinking. He could so easily have just squashed her. What if he'd decided to take her out and dropped her? Am I an idiot for not having thought about this sort of thing before?

Right now I honestly don't feel safe with him in the house. I can't entertain the thought of going to sleep as I have to be awake to protect DD incase he does something else I haven't thought of. Am I over reacting?

My gut feeling right now is to tell him (in the morning) that he has to stop drinking or get out. To pour all the alcohol down the sink. But I know he can't stop, and so I'm scared of the outcome. I do love him, and 95% of the time his behaviour is fine.

WWYD?

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 08/09/2012 12:20

I just love this assumption that everyone else believes you when you say you are in real danger

Womens Aid will believe you. So will Childline, Save the Children and any other charities offering support.

OP actually has a legal responsibility to do everything she reasonably can to protect her child from a known risk and these services will help her to do that.

AnitaManeater · 08/09/2012 12:26

fairenuff Again, not in my experience. The nearest refuge from here is 26 miles away. At the time I had a flat (in my name only) and a job etc. If I had gone to the refuge, your rent is only covered if you are on housing benefit. I couldn't claim housing benefit as I had a job and the refuge was £98 per week. The refuge is short term but I would have lost my flat in that time too as I was still tied to a tenancy agreement I would have been liable for the rent up to the end of then. My ex didn't technically live there either so you cannot evict or serve a possession order on someone who doesn't live there anyhow.

AnitaManeater · 08/09/2012 12:29

Offred how does that mean they believed me? I bargained for contact centre access as he was homeless and had nowhere to live. I wasn't believed on the grounds he was a twunt. He proved himself a twunt when he stopped turning up. Not seen hide nor hair of him for 10 years now.

Offred · 08/09/2012 12:32

I dont see why that is the refuge not believing you?

A person not on a tenancy doesn't have a right to enter your home. They shouldn't have keys without the landlord's permission and the landlord/women's aid will change the locks if they do. If you don't want them there this is the easiest situation to solve, you call the police and get them removed, then you change the locks.

None of the reasons listed are problems with the refuge, they are reasons you chose not to go into a refuge.

Fairenuff · 08/09/2012 12:32

In your case Anita he had no right to enter your property and if he did you could call the police, so it's a little different.

Offred · 08/09/2012 12:34

Everyone has to bargain for supervised access. Court is adversarial.

If you got supervised access that means they supported you and not him because presumably you having to bargain for it means it was not what he wanted.

Ok he's a shit but I don't see how you have been badly done to by the court.

Offred · 08/09/2012 12:35

The courts always take the position of giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Getting an order for supervised access at all means they have sided with you in as far as it is reasonable to believe he needs to be supervised.

AnitaManeater · 08/09/2012 12:38

offred it wasn't about the refuge not believing me. A refuge wasn't really applicable to my circumstances after I had managed to shoehorn him out anyhow. I only made initial enquiries about going to a refuge. I'm referring to police, courts and solicitors not giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Not having the right to enter the property doesn't stop someone who is hellbent on doing so. I also had him under a non molestation order - it doesn't actually stop them assaulting you.

Anyhow - this is becoming a nitpicking session and detracting from the OP

Offred · 08/09/2012 12:40

It isn't reasonable to believe any of those organisations would give you the benefit of the doubt though. That is not how they operate or what they are for.

Fairenuff · 08/09/2012 13:08

Not having the right to enter the property doesn't stop someone who is hellbent on doing so. I also had him under a non molestation order - it doesn't actually stop them assaulting you

No, of course it doesn't, but the point is that it is all evidence that the child may be at risk from this person which is what we were discussing.

And you are right, it is a completely different scenario to OP's situation as far as we know.

PooPooOnMars · 08/09/2012 13:31

There are some on here with rose tinted specs regarding the system.

Offred · 08/09/2012 13:43

I don't think that applies to me poo poo given that it is the area I am now training in and have been recently embroiled in.

Courts, solicitors, social services, police etc investigate and evidence gather and then they take action. They do not get involved with managing family relationships for longer than is required. They interfere in family relationships when they are required.

It isn't reasonable to expect that a court will ever make an order for unlimited supervised access initially. The aim of the supervised access is to make sure the child can see the parent that is putting them at risk in a safe environment and the withdrawal of supervised contact is normally managed if it is ordered, this is responsive to how well the contact goes and if something happens after the supervised contact ends it is the other parent's responsibility to protect the child not the court. The court will normally try to encourage the problem parent to improve their parenting or reduce the risk they pose, they do not magically make that person become someone else.

It wouldn't be reasonable for them to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, they normally actually just investigate, assess and provide protection for the child, nothing to do with the parents really only that they are part of achieving the aim of protecting the child from harm not from one parent's unsubstantiated fear of harm although this is taken into account.

Anita has not said anything that made me think she was not treated well by the court.

Offred · 08/09/2012 13:43

I'd say there are a huge number of people who have misguided expectations from the system.

atosilis · 08/09/2012 13:52

Years ago we went to stay with friends. OH and other husband went out for the night. I woke up in the early hours to see OH pissing in the baby's cot, he was so pissed.

ErikNorseman · 08/09/2012 13:58

And what did you do about that atosills?

Napdamnyou · 08/09/2012 13:59

I don't know about this area, but. Would reporting it to the police as endangering behaviour to a child be an option as in a wake up call if they paid a visit? No idea if this is even remotely a good idea just throwing it out there if he won't accept there was and is a terribly serious frightening problem which endangered a child as in put child at risk of death?

MoRaw · 08/09/2012 14:03

Sounds like he needs help. His drinking sounds excessive. Can't he speak to his GP or join AA?

AnitaManeater · 08/09/2012 14:08

Offred - I have at no point said my case actually entered a courtroom. It all fell apart long before it got that far. It was just a series of solicitors letters and courtroom threats. I simply supported a friend who didn't want to sit in a court waiting room by herself.

scarletforya · 08/09/2012 14:10

That is what I would be trying to do Napdamnyou -they have reckless endangerment laws & child endangerment laws in the US, surely there must be similar in the UK....criminal negligence or something...I'd get the book thrown at this prick.

Offred · 08/09/2012 14:14

Look you Anita and others have made some very damaging and unsubstantiated claims that courts do not protect children of alcoholics from their alcoholism. That services and courts do not believe claims about risk. That the op would not be able to keep her child safe unless she kept the alcoholic close because she would not be able to use the services and courts to protect her child from risk.

I've given up even trying to understand what you claim was done to you by the system, non of it seems to make sense and now it seems you are claiming secondhand information...

Houseofplain · 08/09/2012 14:16

I haven't read the thread, but he'd be out on his bloody ear.

Educate him about cot death. A child is at risk co sleeping with a drunk parent as they are less aware of their surround dings and much more likely to crush a child to death or suffocate them.

In their own cot? Where the space is tiny? He's lucky, very lucky this wasn't tragic.

Offred · 08/09/2012 14:16

There are posters here making out that lack of care and support are to be expected and that because of that the op must take on managing the alcoholism of her husband herself.

It just is very bad advice that no-one has backed up with anything substantial other than a 6 month supervised contact order was not good enough, courts should order this indefinitely.

Houseofplain · 08/09/2012 14:26

It's gone beyond op managing it herself surely? They are very lucky there isn't a dead child here.

It absolutely makes my blood run cold.

Rosa · 08/09/2012 14:33

Op how has it been for you today?

AnitaManeater · 08/09/2012 14:40

Offred I really don't understand your posts either or how they help the OP. I offered up a summary of my experience, which you then proceeded to dissect. I have had to correct you on several points and my original point has now been lost amongst it all.