The thread is heavily polarised. Firstly those who were abused as kids who think that the Mother in these situations should leave - the minute ANY abuse is directed at their kids. Secondly those who are suggesting that the Mother is as much of a victim as the kids (I assume mostly from women who may have been abused themselves.) I fall into the first category but that is probably because I did not have a good childhood and I admit that, as a result, my experiences will affect my judgement.
We all know who was primarily at fault....the man. This is surely not contested. I fully understand that it must be horrendously difficult in many cases for a woman to leave an abusive partner. However, for posters to suggest that leaving is 'more dangerous' is far more likely to stop vulnerable women from leaving..... surely you would not advocate a woman stays with an abuser in case he kills her? That is preposterous.
Yes it's complex, yes it's devastating for all involved but....kids are more vulnerable than adult women. Surely we are not at a stage in feminism in which women are considered to be on a par with children as far as being helpless and vulnerable?
We all know that social services are woefully underfunded, as are the police and the NHS. This should not rule out the autonomy of Mothers and their duty to protect their kids from any situation in which they are put at risk (emotionally or physically).
I am not necessarily directing this at the OP, she left and she did the right thing. But, to not report any attack on a child is, to a certain extent enabling it to continue. How can you argue that this is not the case? You can not allow a child (your own or anyone else's to be hit, ridiculed, neglected or violated in any way). Women who have been subject to abuse are not responsible for what happens to them but, as adults, they are responsible for what happens to their children. If they have to stay with their abuser (for whatever reason), then so be it. Just make sure the kids aren't living through the hell as well.