Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Dv, father with court ordered custody kills baby

32 replies

Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 11:23

www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/child-adult-found-dead-in-apparent-murder-suicide-on-sunshine-coast/news-story/17f9001d327747efb5df0392c45b3210

I am very distressed at this news report of an innocent 6 month old baby murdered by his father who despite perpetrating domestic violence is awarded shared custody by the courts. I've been aware for such a long time of so many mothers escaping domestic violence, seeking support are forced by courts, police, social workers to hand over their babies, their children to violent men and have no way under our current system to protect their children or themselves from threat. These men are protected. I've seen in news women taking their children interstate to hide them and protect them having Amber Alert issued against them and portrayed as kidnapping their children. Domestic violence is an epidemic in our world and this culture of protecting men and their entitlements and their reputations is enabling the assaults and deaths of women and children all over the world. Will this ever change?

OP posts:
mondaysaturday · 06/02/2019 11:31

Currently have my own little one snuggled up and sleeping on my chest and this is breaking my heart. What a catastrophic failing - this is what happens when men's feelings are given priority over children's safety.

Believeitornot · 06/02/2019 11:32

It’s disgusting. I know someone who’s ex husband has contact even though he has a criminal conviction due to violence against the mother. Appalling.

userschmoozer · 06/02/2019 11:34

Will this trigger any kind of inquiry into the decision? Will anything change to keep other children safe?

If not, you have to ask who creates such a system and why.

hollybella89 · 06/02/2019 11:52

This is horrifying that this man has killed his child. There is NO excuse for that.

But...these situations are not as black and white as they appear. The fact there is a DV order in place between these parents does not necessarily mean he is a violent person and should not have access to his child.

The amber alert in Queensland is only used when there is an immediate risk of harm to the child. If it was used for every custody dispute, they would be running non stop and lose all seriousness for the situations where a child is at immediate risk.

I am not defending this man for killing his child. It is never excusable.

I don't know the specifics of this case...but the biggest problem with the system here is that is it flooded with false claims and 'victims' who use the system to further their own agenda and the people who genuinely need help get overlooked.

Believeitornot · 06/02/2019 12:12

The fact there is a DV order in place between these parents does not necessarily mean he is a violent person and should not have access to his child

??

WeRiseUp · 06/02/2019 12:19

It's because MRAs have been working to weaken safeguards so they can gratify their 'entitlement'. They use lots of bullshit false equivalences to sway people into pitying the aggressor and bullshit terms like 'parental alienation syndrome' eased along by cultural misogyny so people think the mum is crazy or vindictive.

Look where it leads - violent dads killing their kids and there's nothing the mum can do about it.

hollybella89 · 06/02/2019 12:23

It's not hard to get an order in this state if you know the right things to say. They can be done privately by an individual at the courthouse and the magistrate will err on the side of caution to cover their own career and make the order. Some are never ever breached. We have had some horrific domestic violence incidents in this state because not enough was done - and now it's swung too far in the opposite direction.

A big threat to genuine victims of domestic violence are the people - both male and female - who use the system to further their own agenda eg child custody, property settlement etc

Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:25

userschmoozer there have been previous cases where similar has happened. And nothing has changed.

Believeitornot it is disgusting. I feel for the person you know who is going through this.

mondaysaturday it is heart breaking.

hollybella89 considering how many proven cases of domestic violence perpetrated against women by men and the statistics being so high I find your response doesn't cut it with me. Fwiw women beaten black and blue and strangled and received death threats etc. who have told me that they were denied being able to charge their ex with assault and the best they can do is have a dv order (known under various names sate by state) issued when we have tough sentencing for one punch aka cowards punch often perpetrated by a male against another male tells me this is a gender discrimination issue and has absolutely nothing to do with so called false reports made by women against ex partners.

OP posts:
Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:27

WeRiseUp

Well said. 100% agree with you.

OP posts:
EnoughSnowAlready · 06/02/2019 12:28

Poor baby. I've never understood why men who commit domestic violence are allowed to see their children in any situation other than a contact centre under supervision.

userschmoozer · 06/02/2019 12:29

these situations are not as black and white as they appear.
But that is precisely why we have safeguarding in place, anyone who understands safeguarding knows this.

Actual harm to women and children is why I'll carry on resisting any attempts to weaken safeguarding in any context.
Mens hurt feelings come second to the physical safety of women and children.

hollybella89 · 06/02/2019 12:31

There does need to be tougher sentencing for these crimes - and assault etc does have a higher penalty if it is a domestic violence offence. There should be minimum mandatory sentencing for these crimes. And for breaches of domestic violence orders.

I was merely pointing out that having an order in place doesn't necessarily prove the respondent on that order is a violent person.

The orders are issued on 'the balance of probabilities'.

Convictions for offences are 'beyond a reasonable doubt'

Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:36

hollybella89 while this news article is about a family in Queensland this issue is not confined to Queensland. In reality I don't don't think this issue is confined to Australia. One way or another this is a world wide issue. There a tragic cases like this happening all over the world. And the same excuses are made worldwide. The same accusations of the woman lying, parental alienation, victim blaming are made all over the world.

OP posts:
Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:39

EnoughSnowAlready

Poor baby. I've never understood why men who commit domestic violence are allowed to see their children in any situation other than a contact centre under supervision.

Exactly. This really isn't that hard.

OP posts:
userschmoozer · 06/02/2019 12:39

Tougher sentences don't prevent crimes, safeguarding does.
Safeguarding protects the vulnerable and at risk, so you have to wonder why MRA's and others are so opposed to it.

Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:42

hollybella89

The orders are issued on 'the balance of probabilities'.

How so? From what I've seen with my own eyes this is not what happens.

OP posts:
hollybella89 · 06/02/2019 12:51

I realise it's not limited to Queensland - it's an epidemic worldwide that needs to be tackled.
I can only speak to how the system works in Queensland because that is where I am located and the system I am involved in.

Again, the point I was trying to make was that the existence of a DV Order in a relationship does not mean that person is violent and shouldn't have access to their child. Obviously some are. This person murdered their child.

There was almost 46000 orders made in Queensland in the 2017-2018 financial year. That doesn't mean there is 46000 violent people out there that shouldn't be able to have contact with their children.

Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 12:52

userschmoozer

Tougher sentences don't prevent crimes, safeguarding does.
Safeguarding protects the vulnerable and at risk, so you have to wonder why MRA's and others are so opposed to it.

That's very true. This was court ordered. There was a dv order in place and I would presume that the mother gave evidence and presented her concerns to the judge. Safeguarding, taking the dv order into consideration, where there was supervised visitation while there is an investigation and assessment made could have prevented this.

OP posts:
Oceanbliss · 06/02/2019 13:03

Ok hollybella89 I didn't realize that you work in the Queensland system, that there are so many false reports made resulting in thousands of unnecessary dv orders. I don't work in the system or have access to the figures that you have. I do however see, hear, read enough to know there are far too many women being dismissed, disbelieved with tragic outcomes.

OP posts:
Oldermum156 · 06/02/2019 13:05

"The fact there is a DV order in place between these parents does not necessarily mean he is a violent person and should not have access to his child. "

Yes it does.
virtually every time there is a "mass murder" here in America I just wait for the news to come out and 99% of the time it was some man who was mad his woman left him and decided to go shoot her, her family, and 2-10 unrelated people over it. There was always a history of DV as well.
History of DV should go down in police records as being an indication of being a possible future terrorism and you should lose all rights to be alone with anyone's children, be in the military, own a gun, or hod any position of responsibility thereafter. The correlation is that strong.

heresyandwitchcraft · 06/02/2019 13:09

hollybella89

Domestic violence is very concerning, and any allegation needs to be taken seriously. The risks of allowing unfettered contact with an abuser far outweigh the problems of "false claims," IMO. 2 women a week in the UK are murdered by men, usually in the context of intimate partner violence. Ignoring this problem or saying it's all a fabrication on the part of a woman making the allegation results in actual loss of life, including in the case highlighted by the OP. Intimate partner violence tends to happen as part of a pattern of behaviour called coercive control, which encompasses many forms of abuse. Part of the abuser's tactic can be controlling their partner using children (because they know the mother will do anything to protect her kids). It does seem to be a predominantly male-on-female issue, especially in terms of injury and loss-of-life.

If it was a stranger who was accused of a pattern of violence against the mother of a child, would you be happy for that stranger to babysit? Why is it any different if it's the father? We know separation from the abusive partner is the riskiest time for women and their children, in terms of likelihood of suffering violence from the person (generally a man) they are escaping.

It sadly would not surprise me at all if this murder-suicide was done as this despicable "father's" final way of "punishing" the woman who bore him a child, because he wanted the "upper hand," especially if he was an abuser.

If you don't know about this subject already, I would recommend you read up on coercive control and what domestic violence actually means for those experiencing it. Their lives can be literally at risk. I worry you are handwaving the problem.

I care a lot more about keeping women and children alive and unmaimed, rather than worrying about the hypotheticals of how safeguarding frameworks might be used to negotiate property rights. Your attitude to this smells a bit similar to how some people say we shouldn't believe rape victims when they come forward, or investigate these claim or put measures in place to protect victims, because a miniscule fraction of women might not be telling the truth.

There was almost 46000 orders made in Queensland in the 2017-2018 financial year. That doesn't mean there is 46000 violent people out there that shouldn't be able to have contact with their children.
Is it really so hard to believe that there could be that many abusers out there? Google tells me the population of Queensland is 4.6 million. So if we assume each order is for one person that means 0.01% of the population gets an order against them per year. Bearing in mind that rate of something like psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder is about 1-4% in the general population www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4649950/.
Is 46000 per year actually that unreasonable a figure?

Some stats as to the Australian situation:
www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/summary

One in 6 Australian women and 1 in 16 men have been subjected, since the age of 15, to physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous cohabiting partner (ABS 2017b). Family, domestic and sexual violence happens repeatedly—more than half (54%) of the women who had experienced current partner violence, experienced more than one violent incident (ABS 2017b). However, between 2005 and 2016, rates of partner violence against women have remained relatively stable (ABS 2006, 2017b).

In 2014–15, on average, almost 8 women and 2 men were hospitalised each day after being assaulted by their spouse or partner (AIHW 2017b). From 2012–13 to 2013–14, about 1 woman a week and 1 man a month were killed as a result of violence from a current or previous partner (Bryant & Bricknell 2017).

A thread to start with for anyone new to coercive control:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

MogPlus · 06/02/2019 13:10

If there's a DV order them surely that means that one person (moody likely the man) is violent, otherwise what on earth else does the V in DV stand for?!

userschmoozer · 06/02/2019 13:20

There was almost 46000 orders made in Queensland in the 2017-2018 financial year. That doesn't mean there is 46000 violent people out there that shouldn't be able to have contact with their children.

I think you are minimising the amount of DV that takes place.

frogsoup · 06/02/2019 13:28

What are Domestic violence orders about if not violence?! Calling them 'dv' orders sounds like deflection in this context. Also, domestic violence orders presumably aren't 'between' couples either, they are the result of the behaviour of one party against the other and intended to protect one of them from harm. The language you use makes it sound like it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. This kind of minimising is doubly concerning when it comes from someone apparently professionally involved in the system.

hollybella89 · 06/02/2019 13:38

I'm not disagreeing with the majority of points people are making.
No violent people should not have access to children - be it their own or anyone else's.

Breaches of orders or actual violence - 100% you should not be around children. You lose your perceived 'rights' the minute that happens.

Someone mentioned weapons - if an order is made here - and it is usually for 5 years and can be extended - weapons are removed from the respondent. Which I think is a reasonable action for police to take to prevent any violent acts using them.

I don't know how it operates in the UK or USA...like I said I can only speak for QLD.

I honestly believe we have a good system here. Unfortunately some 'innocent' people end up as respondents (the baddies basically) on these orders but protecting the majority of vulnerable people is more important than people who need help not getting it. At the end of the day - if the order isn't breached then these 'innocent' respondents don't suffer.

Except if you removed their access to children. Unfortunately we can't have it both ways - either the orders are easy to get and don't automatically restrict access to children OR we make them more difficult to get and they automatically restrict a persons access to their children. But in that case, more people who need help would not get it.

Custody matters and DV matters are heard in different courts in Australia - they have bearing on each other but are still separate.

I am well aware of what coercive control is. And all forms of domestic violence. I am a police officer and I make applications for orders every other day - most I think will make a difference and will provide protection to someone who needs it. And other days I have people walk in asking for an order 'because my solicitor said it will help my custody case'. There are some orders I have to apply for to 'cover my ass and job'. That I believe are rubbish but they've said the right words they've heard on tv which force me to act. I don't need proof of what they say to apply for the order - I don't even need to get the other side of the story. And it's even easier for these people to get these orders implemented privately rather than by a police officer.

And that's all the point I'm trying to make is. The majority of these orders would be necessary and genuine. But there would be thousands that aren't. In this state, the existence of an Order does not mean the respondent is violent.