Yes, it’s another Monday here at Researching Reform and other places around the planet, so we thought we’d start with our question of the week for you to mull over with a cup of tea and a Wagon Wheel…
In a recent case in the Court of Appeal, (Re M (Children) (Domestic Violence: Supervised Contact), it was held that a judge who had been presiding over a case was wrong to bar the father from contact with his three children, although the judge had found the father’s violence, in particular towards the mother, was a risk factor which destabilised the children’s home and security. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division), held that the judge should have considered all available avenues for contact, including properly supervised contact, before making what was viewed as a Draconian order.
In Re D (Contact: Reasons for Refusal) [1997] 2 FLR 48, it was recognised that children who witness domestic violence towards a mother can be damaged by the experience.
Our question this week, then, is this: should violent parents who direct that violence at a partner ever be allowed to have contact with their children?
Over to you….
It is well-known throughout the western world that the frequently articulated and practiced mantra of the Family Courts and those who serve in them is, ” Father’s Rights will be protected no matter what the coast to the children, mother, or to society” – Pagelow M.D. (1990) Effects of domestic vilence on children and their consequences for cusody and Visitation Arrangements. Mediation Quarterly 7, 347 – 363.
The views and opinions of the National Organisation of Men Against Sexism [NOMAS] are probably the most pertinent and accurate in these matters.
http://site.nomas.org/shared-custody-issues-context-domestic-violence/
The effects of domestic violence on children is also well-documented by the U.S. Centre for Disease Control [CDC] i.e.
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study is one of the largest investigations ever conducted to assess associations between childhood maltreatment and later-life health and well-being. The study is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente’s Health Appraisal Clinic in San Diego.
More than 17,000 Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) members undergoing a comprehensive physical examination chose to provide detailed information about their childhood experience of abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction. To date, more than 50 scientific articles have been published and more than100 conference and workshop presentations have been made.
The ACE Study findings suggest that certain experiences are major risk factors for the leading causes of illness and death as well as poor quality of life in the United States. Progress in preventing and recovering from the nation’s worst health and social problems is likely to benefit from understanding that many of these problems arise as a consequence of adverse childhood experiences.
Major Findings
Childhood abuse, neglect, and exposure to other traumatic stressors which we term adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are common. Almost two-thirds of our study participants reported at least one ACE, and more than one of five reported three or more ACE. The short- and long-term outcomes of these childhood exposures include a multitude of health and social problems.
The ACE Study uses the ACE Score, which is a count of the total number of ACE respondents reported. The ACE Score is used to assess the total amount of stress during childhood and has demonstrated that as the number of ACE increase, the risk for the following health problems increases in a strong and graded fashion:
• Alcoholism and alcohol abuse
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Depression
• Fetal death
• Health-related quality of life
• Illicit drug use
• Ischemic heart disease (IHD)
• Liver disease
• Risk for intimate partner violence
• Multiple sexual partners
• Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
• Smoking
• Suicide attempts
• Unintended pregnancies
• Early initiation of smoking
• Early initiation of sexual activity
• Adolescent pregnancy
I cannot see in any circumstances how a parent who has caused their children such serious lifelong harm to their children, should be ermitted to have continuing contact with their children and thereby inflict even more harm on them. It is tantamount to colluding and collaborating in continuing child abuse.
LikeLike
Yes – even the children of multiple axe murders are entittled to see their parents.
Or perhaps you should re-phrase the question. Should we ban children whose parents have been violent to each other from seeing their parents.
LikeLike
Mothers are just as likely to be the perpetrators of domestic violence but they routinely are given residence of children.
Why is domestic violence committed by women seen to be okay?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals
LikeLike
Ragnavald – Do you agree that the similar amounts of women who perpetrate domestic violence should be removed from their children permanently?
LikeLike
Natasha, Appropriate recourse and appropriate redress. Nobody condones domestic violence but all the research shows children benefit from the love and affection of both parents. The ‘Australian experience’ shows that if you start using this sort of example to stop contact you open the floodgates to all parents using the argument of domestic violence vexatiously as a ‘pretext’. Please see the example of ‘Dispute over whether to listen to children’s tape or talkback radio costs dad right to equal access’ in which the Australian judge found the father’s bid for shared parental responsibility was rebutted because ‘family violence’ occurred during the fight over the car radio some years earlier. kip
LikeLike
I agree with the Appeal decision, in part. Unless he has been violent towards his children there should be no reason to stop contact or to have supervised contact.
The other decisions are just plain wrong.
http://nccpr.info/when-children-witness-domestic-violence-expert-opinion/
When Children Witness Domestic Violence: Expert Opinion
SUMMARY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
ON THE IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF WITNESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
From the Decision of U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Nicholson v. Williams, Case #00-CV2229, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/nicholsonorder
This case challenged the practice of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Judge Weinstein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped. A member of the NCCPR Board of Directors is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in this case.
During the trial several leading national experts testified on the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence, and the impact on children of being removed from the non-offending parent.
In general, the experts found that witnessing domestic violence is sometimes, but not always, harmful to children. And even when witnessing domestic violence does harm, removing the child from the non-offending parent is more harmful. Indeed, one expert testified that a removal under such circumstances “is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound.”
“Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children, some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child maltreatment…. Defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of strong coping abilities”.
“Several expert witnesses, including Dr. Peter Wolf, plaintiffs’ expert, testified about the primacy of the parent-child bond and the effect on a child if he or she is separated from a parent. He averred that the attachment between parent and child forms the basis of who we are as humans and the continuity of that attachment is essential to a child’s natural development”
“Although breaking or weakening the ties to the responsible and responsive adults may have different consequences for children of different ages, there is little doubt that such breach in the familial bond will be detrimental to the child’s well-being.”
“Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of domestic violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes in New York City is double that in the general population”.
LikeLike
The effects on children of domestic violence is very well researched and indisputable in the vast majority of instances.
Intimate Partner Violence and Child Abuse: A Child-Centred
Perspective – Child Abuse Review Vol. 19: 5–20 (2010)
“Children forced to live with intimate partner violence experience
a range of negative outcomes (see Bedi and Goddard,
2007; Buckley et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2008). Some children experiencing
such violence develop post-traumatic stress disorder
(McCloskey and Walker, 2000). Depression (Jouriles et al., 1996),
anxiety (Kerig, 1998), loneliness (McCloskey and Stuewig, 2001)
and lowered self-worth (O’Brien et al., 1997) have all been
reported in samples of child victims of intimate partner violence.
Children living with intimate partner violence may also have
school diffi culties, with reports of lowered verbal intellectual
function (Huth-Bocks et al., 2001) and reading ability (Mathias
et al., 1995). Unsurprisingly, rates of aggressive behaviour are
higher in children living with intimate partner violence than in
control groups (Graham-Bermann and Levendosky, 1998). In
addition, intimate partner violence may substantially affect the
relationship between children and the non-abusive/victimised
parent (see Humphreys et al., 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
Although elevated rates of psychological problems have been
reported in groups of child victims of intimate partner violence,
there is substantial variability in individual outcomes (Skopp
et al., 2005), with some children apparently showing few or no
diffi culties (Clements et al., 2008; Edleson, 1999a). This variability
may relate to the nature of the experience, with the frequency
and severity of violence likely to have an impact on
outcomes (Kantor and Little, 2003). In addition, recent research
has focused on identifying child-related factors that may mediate
the association between intimate partner violence and psychological
diffi culties in children (e.g. Skopp et al., 2005).
As noted, the emerging picture is complex. There is evidence
that gender mediates outcomes, with some studies suggesting that
boys forced to live with intimate partner violence have more
behavioural problems than girls (Jaffe et al., 1986). However,
other studies have not found this to be the case (Grych et al.,
2000). Younger age at onset appears to carry the potential for
greater diffi culties (e.g. Hughes, 1988). Children’s interpretations
of the violence also appear to mediate outcomes, with greater
self-blame and perceived threat associated with higher risk for
psychological problems (Grych et al., 2000; Skopp et al., 2005)”.
Of course in many instances the children’s emotional/behavioural problems continue long after the abusive partner has left, more so if the children are ordered and forced into continuing contact, but then the sole parent tends to be blamed for such continuing problematic behaviours, usually by the abusive parent and frequectly by Court officials and wider society.
LikeLike
“The fact is that the present custody court response to domestic violence has been a disaster for battered women and children. Everything is severely tilted to favor abusive fathers so that the outcomes are often catastrophic and the court discussions tend to focus too much on protecting abusers’ interests rather than safeguarding children.”
“Abusive fathers commit domestic violence tactics based on a belief system that they are entitled to control their partner and make the major decisions in the relationship. His belief system does not change with the end of the relationship and in fact the use of the custody tactic demonstrates the likelihood he will continue to abuse future partners. If the abuser is granted custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness still more domestic violence. This adds to their cumulative adversity and therefore dramatically increases their medical risks”
http://stopabusecampaign.com/feature/serious-health-consequences-to-children-witnessing-domestic-violence?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=serious-health-consequences-to-children-witnessing-domestic-violence
LikeLike
Thank you for all your interesting comments. This isn’t as far as we perceive it, a gender based question. This is about whether children who witness one parent being violent to the other should have contact with the violent parent.
On its face, it sounds like a fragmented question, which could be filled with the notion that a violent partner who is not violent towards their children are not a physical threat to them.
However. There is an emotional element to this. Looking at this from the child’s perspective, one could argue that having to spend time, which they may have been ordered to do by the courts rather than willingly elect to (a caveat in itself), with a violent individual, regardless of kinship connection, is both terrifying and confusing for a child. How do we reconcile this dilemma?
Over to you….
LikeLike
60% of women at a Glasgow University said it is acceptable to hit their husbands and 35% admitted assaulting their partner.
8% of these university attending women admitted injuring their partners including causing them bruises, cuts and broken bones.
So, 60% of these university educated women condone assaults on men and 35% have attacked their partners, 8% of these women seriously assaulting their partners.
PERHAPS, we should stop these violent women and those women who condone violence against their partners, from having children and/or remove their children at birth?
If we want to stop children being involved with parents who believe domestic violence is okay, then to be on the safe side we should remove 60% or thereabouts of children from their mothers. Is that what is being suggested because what is good for fathers should be the same for mothers, I think we can agree?
Let’s protect all children from abusing parents (mothers and fathers) and remove their children. We are talking 60% or so of parents having their children removed because they think it is alright to use violence or perhaps only 35% who actually do you violence.
Grand idea!
Personally I think the Courts are about right on this but they need to ensure they treat both mother and father perpetrators similarly, which they do not do so. If we are to protect children that is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5092100.stm
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, M. This post though, really isn’t about gender issues in the first instance. We are talking about violence and how it affects children.
LikeLike
As Tracey says, it shouldn’t be a gender issue but it is. M. x
LikeLike
Hi Maria, Why do you want to remove the child? Do you really think it would be better?
LikeLike
I agree with you Natasha. These are not primarily matters concerning gender issues, but about the safety and protection of children and principly about the duty of Courts to provide such protection. It is tedious when debates become turned into issues of parental rights, no matter which gender.
LikeLike
It’s a dilemma and while it shouldn’t be a gender issue, it always will be.
That said, I do think for a child, it is an age matter. The age of the child needs to be taken into consideration. A six-month old baby is a very different matter from a 14-year old who is able to speak out and do something about what if any, dangerous situations they may be in.
Interesting topic Natasha – just no time to read at the moment.
LikeLike
What is ‘violence’ these days? Both my mother and father slapped me when I was a kid; my mother was very tall so she was known to pick me up by my hair and then slap the back of my legs! It wasn’t considered ‘violent’ in the fifties, but ‘just punishment’. If either of my parents had been banned from seeing me, I would have been utterly distraught. Even if the background is less than ideal, children need security and continuity. I do not feel I have been damaged at all by the treatment I received as a child. I would not advocate it myself, but the thinking then was that a slap, once administered, was over. Much better than going on and on about how bad you’d been and how it affected everyone else, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Maybe we’re getting too precious?
I haven’t seen my only child since she was two-and-a-half. I never once even considered raising my hand to her. It’s just that the mother got a new bloke. So here’s two questions you might like to ask, I think more important than this one about a Dad being occasionally ‘violent’. First question: How can it be right that I can see anyone else’s child – any child in the world – except my own? And that anyone can see my child, except me? Second question – when all the evidence; every report, every survey – shows that children are almost always best brought up knowing both parents (whether or not those parents live together); how can the Family Courts possibly say they work ‘in every child’s best interests’ when they allow any new man (or woman) to move into the home of a child with no questions asked, and at the same time putting the ousted natural parent through the hell of the court system? ‘New man’ is considered fine to be with your child or children from day one; no court appearances for him, no police checks, no questions asked. He could be anyone; Tom, Dick or paedophile. Every survey shows that a child is at greater risk of abuse from live-in lovers, boyfriends, even step-parents, than they are from their natural parents. Yet they still prevent non-resident parents from seeing their children; still, they do it. I submit that the Courts do NOT work in any child’s ‘best interests’. It is a wicked deceit and it is totally untrue and it causes untold misery and heartbreak for the non-resident parent.
My daughter is now twenty-one, totally alienated and poisoned against me. Nineteen years on, the legacy of Oxford Family Court hurts and damages us just as much as it did all those years ago.
[Content Removed]
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment. We respectfully disagree with your views on smacking and would question why you choose not to partake in it, if you feel it’s not harmful. A contradiction, surely.
And whilst we have a great deal of sympathy for what you’re going through, this post’s focus is violence and contact.
LikeLike
I think that name withheld has a point. It was not so long ago that parents smacked their children and my own childhood is littered with canings received for the slightest bending of rules from a “good catholic school!” Changes in how children should be brought up have evolved with legislation but parents are penalised in a very draconian way if they ignore how the government believe is the best way. Even now emotional abuse is used to remove children from their homes but no one has told the parents!
Children are more damaged by being removed but the government conveniently ignore that!
LikeLike
Hi D, it is true that parenting styles change and evolve, and not necessarily always positively, throughout human history. The practice of smacking is a significant benchmark of how parenting has been perceived throughout the ages, and research is starting to come to light which shows that smacking can be harmful to children, and that “More competent parents are less likely to smack”. So, where does that leave us?
LikeLike
4 out of 5 parents smack their children at one time or another. Should their children be removed from them?
The vast majority of parents and some experts would probably say that those parents who do not smack their children when it is appropriate, are incompetent parents.
Research has shown that children who have been smacked go on to be more successful.
Other recent research shows that smacking does no harm to children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240279/Children-smacked-young-likely-successful-study-finds.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10004517/Smacking-does-children-no-harm-if-they-feel-loved-study-claims.html
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/parents-who-smack-kids-shouldnt-be-criminalised/
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughts, M. This really isn’t about removal of children from parents who smack their children. We’re sliding off into a different issue, one we do tend to address quite a lot on this blog, so perhaps we could stick to the issue in the original post. I see you have done just that with further links to bolster the view that smacking is ok.
I’m inclined to take the data you refer to with a pinch of salt: all rather right wing/ conservative organisations, which tend to promote corporal punishment.
LikeLike
Natasha – It is not a case of right or left wing, David Lammy MP who is a left wing Labour MP is supportive of smacking, there are plenty of others.
4 out of 5 parents are not right wing, otherwise we would constantly be governed by the tories or UKIP.
All I was highlighting is that there is a lot of research that shows there is nothing wrong with appropriate smacking, and some research says it is beneficial. It is not as clear cut as you indicated.
The research provided is not right wing but it is reported in right wing media, there is a difference.
I never said smacking is okay, I have just pointed out that the majority of parents believe it is okay and so do plenty of researchers and politicians etc.
LikeLike
Yes, I have a nick name for David – it’s David Smack Me MP (see past blog posts). But I was referring to the research you chose specifically. If you have a read of the research I posted up in this thread, you will see it’s much more nuanced than you might imagine (the report is prepared by serious experts in the field, so it is balanced). The conclusion is not that smacking is ‘not ok’ -it’s that smacking is actively detrimental – not just to emotional well being and bonding but to the development of survival skills later on in life. It’s worth a read.
LikeLike
http://www.pedsforparents.com/articles/2906.shtml
Here is a serious expert in the field who puts research you mention regarding smacking into context, it is too lazy and usually campaign only focussed to say that smacking is bad:
“Evidence from several academic research studies suggests that the impacts of spanking on children’s later emotional and behavioral well-being depend largely on other factors besides the use of spanking per se.
The quality of family life, in general, and the circumstances that lead up to and follow punishment of a child, in particular, may be much more influential than whether or not punishment involves a spanking.”
Dr. Eric Slade is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, and is a past recipient of a Research Career Award from the National Institute of Mental Health. His research focuses on the economic effects of emotional and behavioral problems in children and on children’s use of mental health care services. He is currently participating in an economic evaluation of a classroom-based program designed to prevent aggressive behaviors in elementary school aged children.
LikeLike
M, please read the research I posted. There’s no point in having a debate unless you do so.
LikeLike
Natasha – I read the research earlier, it really is no more persuasive than the other research you say should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I will keep an open mind on smacking.
I don’t think it is fair to condemn parents (the vast majority) who smack their children while putting on a pedestal those who do not.
LikeLike
Hi M, no-one is condemning parents. This blog does not seek to do that. No parent is perfect. But looking to new research and seeing what we can do better is never a bad thing.
LikeLike
This has been a fascinating read. I sympathise with Withheld’s points where he states that Family Law currently allows “new people” into children’s lives. In today’s monitoring, he’s absolutely correct, there is no monitoring at all of a parent’s new partner.
Times have changed. I will never forget the time when my father beat me. And I mean beat. Today, that would have been an arrestable offence for him. I’m totally against violence – and I don’t think any child should be subjected to it, in any way shape or form. Sadly, it seems part of our society. I don’t agree that a child can be hit, yet two adults can hit each other and have an assault charge against them.
Back to my earlier point, I want to expand on the age of children and the original question that Natasha asked. Should a parent who is violent not be allowed contact with their child/ren
If domestic violence is to be a criminal offence, which it is in terms of assault charges, then the rehabilitation of that offender should be addressed. It’s all very easy to say “he/she has not hurt the child” If there’s a violent streak in a person who loses control when pushed to the limit and uses his/her fists to overpower another person then that loss of control will happen whether there is a child there or not,. It’s this point where Family Law crosses the line into Criminal Law and Never the Twain has met.
The first has to be to protect the child. That’s the priority and of paramount importance. Any parent would remove their child from a violent situation. My own father has a violent streak in him. He beat me and he beat my mother. I’m using him as he’s the closest person I know who has a violent tendency. (Great parents huh? One’s a schizophrenic and one’s a violent one – although both have mellowed over the years) so that violent tendency has to be dealt with. We claim we are a society that condemns violence, so why would we place a child in a violent environment. It’s wrong. The person who has that violent streak has to address that and those who have the power to handle the violent person needs to do so. It’s pointless asking the partner what to do. He or she does not have the dispassionate side that is required to deal with violence. They cannot make the decisions. Until that happens and even more so with a young infant, there should be no contact. An older child who is able to decisions should then be listened to about what they want. At the age of 45 I can remember the beating, I cannot remember the smacks on the bottom or hand that I am sure were addressed. It’s the violence in my father that makes me not trust him and still – he is unable to handle feelings and when faced with difficulties he will now withdraw, when he was younger, that rage would fill his fists. Those were his words. His fists.
I don’t see this as a Family Law problem. Make the order by all means, based on the age of a child, an infant or young child should not have contact with a person who loses control, male or female. An older child should be listened to and have their views taken into consideration. It’s the violence in the person that needs to be sorted and that is a criminal law problem and is down to the offender to address and realise that violence is an unacceptable way to deliver one’s thoughts.
LikeLike
Incredibly interesting and thought-provoking, thank you Tracey.
LikeLike
Tracey – a very, very sad story and you have my utmost sympathy.
Those who use violence against others, especially those to whom they are related, are invariably deficient and defective of feelings and emotions, compassion and empathy, and have no remorse for their victims. Psychiatrists use the term `Psychopaths’ to describe such persons but their neurological defects are far more serious than such descriptions allow, which incidently can now be diagnosed by Brain MRI Scans.
When such acts of violence are reported to Courts, especially Family Courts, the first step should be to have such persons fully assessed for those conditions and for the risks they present to society as well as to their own family members.
Those convicted of acts of violence should be placed on a publicly available National Register of Violent Offenders (already introduced in some countries) so everyone can be aware of their danger and take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and their loved ones, just as they can against Sex Offenders.
Of course such a proposal will be vigorously opposed by those same psychopaths but it is something which the majority of people with feelings, empathies, and compassion for others must press for.
LikeLike