It’s an ambivalent Monday, with sun and grey all making an appearance, but there’s nothing ambivalent about our question for you this week.
With more coverage in the news that not enough is being done to protect victims of domestic violence, there is always the underlying difficulty of getting victims to come forward in the first instance. Many are afraid they will lose their children to the care system if they do – others fear violent reprisals from the abuser.
This week’s question then, is by no means an easy one to answer and it is this: what could be done to help victims of domestic violence come forward and seek out the protection they so need?
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Thanks Natasha. The BBC piece is typical of virtually all mainstream media pieces on DV. It starts with a photo of a man attacking a woman, and ends with lengthy comments by Polly Neate,CEO of Women’s Aid. Why no comments from Mark Brooks of The Mankind Initiative?
We recently sent our first official complaint to the BBC, it was about a ‘Newsnight’ piece on DV which showed only male perpetrators and female victims (Polly Neate was interviewed, as was a man who runs a charity working with male perpetrators). Our complaint itemised 50+ breaches of the BBCs editorial guidelines, yet the BBC response was an insult to say the least (we’ve appealed).
It’s long been known that:
– compared with men, women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive towards their intimate partners
– 40% of victims of DV are men
– where DV is unreciprocated, the perpetrator is more likely to be a women than a man
– only 4% of female perpetrators of DV cite self-defence as a motivator
When the truth about DV gets reported regularly by the mainstream media, THEN men might be more likely to come forward and seek help. As it is, 99% of the places in refuges for battered people are allocated to women only.
There are many reasons why men and women don’t leave abusive partners. For men, on of the most important is the expectation they’ll never again see their children – well-justified expectation, given how the family courts deny so many fathers reasonable access to their children, in the face of vindictive ex-wives intent on emotionally assaulting them and their children.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women who love them)
http://j4mb.org.uk
LikeLike
Hi Mike, many thanks for your post and I do understand your plight, but this is not a gender related question. I am asking simply, whether men or women who are abused and who are afraid of coming forward can ever be coaxed into doing so, safely and with their blessing.
LikeLike
Thanks Natasha. Given that the provision of support for abused women is so much times higher than for men, how can this NOT be a gender-related question? Men and women are different, so the ways in which they might be ‘coaxed’ into coming forward will necessarily be different. How will you coax men (with young kids, especially) into coming forward when they know they’ll probably never see their kids again if they do? The state is intrinsically hostile towards men – not that it’s never hostile towards women, but far less frequently, and less severely. We see this throughout the justice system’s leniency towards female offenders compared with male offenders.
LikeLike
Easy ! Give a categoric assurance that the children will not be removed if domestic abuse is reported ! Most parents would prefer to endure the abuse or flee from it rather than have report it and then endure a visit from unsympathetic social workers who come not to comfort the sufferer but to remove the older children into State Care and the younger ones to eventual forced adoption by strangers …………….
LikeLike
Thank you, FA.
LikeLike
I agree with ‘forcedadoption’ – only I would again say that every parent, male and female, should have a presumption, in law, to see their children. I know, Natasha, that you disagree with me on this and I respect your view and the reasons you give; but the paramountcy principle seems to me to be so open to abuse by the SS when they can legally take kids away on the basis that it is in the children’s best interests. Of course, if domestic violence extends to the kids, then the parent/s responsible should forfeit their ‘rights’ to be with their kids. (I don’t include the occasional smack in this). Mike Buchanan is, I think, correct in saying that the system seems to favour women in cases of D.V. but wrong in saying that the system overall favours women. We just need to look at Dr. Hibbert to disabuse ourselves of this notion. And the evil obscenities of some SS workers in taking kids away from mothers. I do hope that one day those who have done this will be forced to confront those they have done it to, and the children involved.
Roger
LikeLike
Hi Roger, thank you for your comment. Yes, you’re right, I do feel anything can be open to abuse, so the root cause in this context, to my mind, must be found not in law, but in the process and the culture of the system.
LikeLike
Hi Roger. I don’t want to go OT, but you write:
“Mike Buchanan is, I think, correct in saying that the system seems to favour women in cases of D.V. but wrong in saying that the system overall favours women.”
In our public consultation document – downloadable from http://j4mb.org.uk – we make proposals in 20 areas where the state assaults men and/or boys through its actions and inactions. Our 2015 general election manifesto will probably have 25+ areas.
Nobody – not even gender feminists – have ever come up with even one area where in Britain today women and/or girls are assaulted by the state, other then by misrepresenting inequalities of outcome as reflecting inequalities of opportunities. Which is ironic to say the least, when two-thirds of public sector employees are women, and men collectively pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, and women only 28%. It’s largely men who are financing the state’s advantaging of women (and girls) at the expense of men (and boys). You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise this isn’t a sustainable direction of travel, hence the men’s human rights movement, in which my political party is but a small cog..
LikeLike
Hello Mike and everyone else,
My fault, I should have been more specific. By ‘the system’, I meant the family justice system, not the system as a whole. I don’t feel, personally, disadvantaged as a man by the system and have never felt that. Except in the Family Court, where my nemesis was a male judge. The only Judge who spoke any sense, in my view, was in the High Court, and – you’ve guessed it – she was a female Judge. I’ll look at the consultation document you mention, and I can only speak for myself when I say I’ve never felt disadvantaged by the accident of birth. Perhaps I’m just lucky. I’ve never felt that feminism was attractive, but neither do I feel that ‘maleism’ is attractive either! We should, I believe, all be working together to stop the attack on families. All members of them.
And, surely, if men collectively pay 72% of income tax and women 28%, it means men, collectively, are earning a lot more than women? Or am I missing something here?
Roger
LikeLike
“Not enough is being done to protect victims of domestic violence“, is possibly one legitimate view but the situation would be far worse were the £900 million subsidy was withdrawn. But then what is enough ? Locking up all men ? Or is it just aother excuse for police force bashing which seems a favourite sport of some feminists lobbyists (and who is it they turn to when things go wrong in their personal life, eh ?).
“Many” is a relative term. In 30 years I can count on one hand the “many” who “are afraid they will lose their children to the care system if they do.”
In that regard I would agree with Mike Buchanan and add that our so-called equality laws are an abuse of power in that they suposedly make women as equal as men but never address areas with women are more pre-eminent than men, ie it’s a one way street. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.ambition was gender neutral laws but the definition made it clear that ”Equality” did not mean treating all groups alike to achieve true equality and that it was frequently necessary for policies and programs to treat different individuals and groups (women) in different & preferential ways. The practical effect of this gender neutrality was to make all social laws gender preferred and specifically to benefit one gender.
LikeLike
@ Roger Crawford. Thanks for your comments. There isn’t the slightest doubt that men are treated more harshly by the justice system than women, right from the point of which cases the police put forward to follow. In many areas women are effectively above the law. Any woman can ruin a man’s life, for example, though a false allegation of sexual assault. His identity will be exposed before the case even comes to trial, while she’ll retain anonymity even if the case fails. If the case succeeds, she’ll get substantial compensation from the state.
If you follow http://j4mb.org.uk you’ll see a whole series of cases where the treatment of women by the justice system is outrageous. Women are treated as little more culpable for their actions than children. One example. One form of paternity fraud – leading a man to believe he’s the father of your child when he’s not (or attempting to do so) has long been a criminal offence in the UK. It’s a far more common crime than is generally believed, and for many years the CSA alone has learned of 500+ women a year who’ve claimed a particular man is the father of her child, he denies it (or is suspicious), demands a paternity test, and he’s proven right. So the CSA alone knows of MANY thousands of women who’ve committed the crime. How many women have ever been convicted of the crime in the UK? The answer will surprise nobody with an understanding of how the justice system treats women. None.
You’re quite right, of course men collectively earn more than women, which explains the 72% – 28% differential. The reasons men earn more are perfectly well understood. They’re more likely to:
– work f/t rather than p/t
– work in lines of work which attract a pay premium because they’re in unpleasant conditions, outdoors, dangerous (of 126 workplace-related deaths in 2012/13, 124 were men), time spent away from home etc.
– men work harder than women so as to ascend the corporate ladder, so ‘progressive’ tax rates impact more on men collectively than women collectively
Finally, the renowned sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim published a paper on ‘Preference Theory’ in 2000, showing that while four in seven British men are work-centred, just one in seven British men is.
Will return to DV in my next note!
LikeLike
Sorry, in last note meant to say with respect to work-centredness, just one in seven British WOMEN is
LikeLike
@ rwhiston
You write:
“Many” is a relative term. In 30 years I can count on one hand the “many” who “are afraid they will lose their children to the care system if they do.”
Last year I attended the National Conference for Male Victims of Domestic Violence. One of the most interesting presentations was by a leading British authority on DV, Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan. She stated that one of the key reasons men don’t leave abusive partners was that they’d probably never see their children again. From memory it wasn’t that the SS would take the children – though clearly that’s sometimes the case – more that their abusive partners would stop them seeing their children. A reasonable assumption I’d have thought, and of course the courts are very reluctant to enforce contact orders. The state effectively enables vindictive women to emotionally abuse both their own children, and their ex-partners. Many men have spent upwards of £100,000 in legal fees seeking to gain reasonable access to their children, often to no avail, and how many men can afford that?
I’ve never met anyone working in the field of helping men (and sometimes women) gain access to their kids, who hadn’t known a number of men committing suicide when they gave up the fight. It’s a driver of the high male suicide rate, and in 2011/12 in the UK 3.5 times more men than women commit suicide (the male/female suicide rate differential was 1.9 in 1981, when gendered stats started being reported for the first time). It’s not difficult to join the dots if you try, but the mainstream media will never help you to do so. Which is why sites like ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com, the most-visited and most influential men’s human rights advocacy website in the world, are so important.
LikeLike
Mike Buchanan ;you say you can count on one hand (bravo!) but to say that less than five parents fear care proceedings if they report abuse is just not so.
From the number of calls I receive every day from parents fearing or suffering the removal of their child into care I would say abuse is just about the number one reason for removing children from parents !The abusive parent is excluded BY COURT ORDER from the care of the child and usually the abused parent also for failing to protect the child from witnessing the abuse !This happens even when the abuse is mere shouting and screaming whether it is in the presence or absence of the child or children (If this rule applied in Italy there would be no parents left there looking after their own children !) If the abused parent finds a new partner with whom a new baby is conceived they still risk losing the new baby as the old abuse accusation follows parents around like an albatross round their necks !(and this even when no criminal charges were ever made !)
No Mike,parents report abuse at their peril !!
LikeLike
@forcedadoption
It wasn’t me, it was ‘rwhiston’ who made the point about ‘counting on one hand’. Thanks for the insights into the system.
LikeLike
Spanish suicide statistics make your point from 2004 onwards. When Spain introduced punative fem-centric legislation enabled by mere allegation (that saw even police officers and judges lose touch with their children because of court bans) suicides soared.
LikeLike
My error and my apologies Mike !
LikeLike
No problem – easily done! Shocked by what you had to say about what the SS do. It’s a scandal, and an under-reported one in the mainstream media (as such things generally are, sadly).
LikeLike
In the UK, the suicide rate among men following the breakdown of long-term relationships is nine times higher than that of women. One prime contributor is known to be denial of access to children.
LikeLike
Briefly, as I don’t want to hog this page. Mike is certainly right about the lack of enforcement of court orders and the long, unequal struggle for many men to get them enforced. The mother of my child felt she could just drop her obligation to me (and the Court) at the drop of a hat. And she could, and did. But I still hold to my view that it’s the non-resident parent who gets shafted irrespective of gender. It’s just that most non-resident parents are men. I know of two very vindictive men who are using the same tactics on non-resident mothers, with equally devastating effects and with equal impunity. Vindictive nastiness, emotional blackmail, and cruelty beyond understanding are not the sole prerogative of one sex. It should be the Court’s job to recognise this and stop it, but sometimes it seems as if it thrives on adversary.
Roger
LikeLike
Natasha wrote that “DV victims were afraid of losing their children to the care system if . . . ” I simply don’t see it in my work.
So I will stick to my statement until any contrary evidence is forthcoming that; ” In 30 years I can count on one hand the “many” who “are afraid they will lose their children to the care system if they do.”
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughts gentlemen. It may interest some of you to know that studies show, after divorce women tend to find it easier to cope emotionally, and so are less prone to poor mental and physical health. This may be one reason why the suicide rate amongst women may be lower in cases where children are removed from their care or they are denied access.
It’s interesting to note too, that many of you still feel the problem of contact and its denial is largely a female/ or mother driven scenario, but I can assure you that women suffer with the same issues as men inside the system.
I find that I am approached by both mothers and fathers in just about equal measure for assistance, but it would be interesting to know whether those of you who also help find the same thing. Do women prefer to go to women for help, do you find you are approached almost exclusively by men, as men yourselves?
For those of you who seek evidence of women who fear losing their children to the care system, all you need do is read this blog, or google various search terms and you will discover a wealth of information on mothers who have lost their children to the care system, and fathers too. I have also worked with numerous women whose partners have been violent and who despite excellent efforts at removing their children from danger, still faced losing their children. In those moments, when you hear another human being sobbing through the telephone in abject fear and desperation, the reality of the phenomenon cannot be denied.
LikeLike
Natasha, you write:
“It’s interesting to note too, that many of you still feel the problem of contact and its denial is largely a female/ or mother driven scenario, but I can assure you that women suffer with the same issues as men inside the system.”
The key point is that far more fathers than mothers suffer denial of access, in part because courts are reluctant to enforce contact orders against mothers. People have told me it may even be true by a factor of 10:1. The mother’s ‘happiness’ is a trump card, so if it makes her ‘happy’ to emotionally abuse her children and her ex-partner by ensuring they don’t see each other – or only see each other very rarely – so be it.
Our blog piece on an ‘unimpeachable father’ whose ex-partner had breached 82 contact orders over 12 years, and continues to do so:
http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/father-with-no-rights-mother-stops-him-seeing-daughter-for-12-years-despite-82-court-orders-demanding-she-back-down/
The justice system is brutal towards men in this and so many other ways. It’s not generally a matter of legislation, it’s how the system operates in practise (as I think I explained with the point that no British women has ever been convicted of paternity fraud). An example is the show trials recently of elderly men alleged to have sexually assaulted women over 40/50 years ago. A ‘Newsnight’ interview of Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, along with our commentary:
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
Whilst there may be instances across the country of mum’s happiness being put first, it is certainly not a blanket phenomenon. As I mentioned earlier, I have and do work with many women who are treated very badly by the courts. They are often accused of lying when they are telling the truth and many have ex partners who are very charming but conceal a violent and domineering personality, not readily spotted by the system sometimes.
It seems to me Mike, that you have either had a very linear experience inside the system or that you are so pre-occupied with the male agenda that you have lost sight of the realities here. Both men and women suffer inside the system – precisely because the system varies and fluctuates so widely in terms of opinion, perspective and competence. It is pure foolishness to think that the system is entirely skewed towards women, especially in light of all the evidence on the internet that one can access and which shows otherwise.
LikeLike
Natasha, of course I’m pre-occupied with the male agenda, because so few people are, which is why men’s human rights are trampled upon left, right and centre. Of course some women are treated badly, but the fact that HUGELY more men than women suffer appears not to concern you (or even interest you) one jot. We’ve published many examples of where women have been treated outrageously leniently by the system, e.g. only being cautioned by the police after making demonstrably false rape allegations which can – and often do – ruin men’s lives, and waste a huge amount of police time which could have been better spent elsewhere. I repeat the point that women are treated by the justice system as barely more responsible for their actions and inactions than children.
LikeLike
Mike, of course it concerns me, and you know it does. My previous response explains clearly why. As for false allegations, this is something both men and women do, but they are still both in the minority in relative terms. It takes a certain type of person to be able to lie about such grave things. If you wish to suggest that women are all naturally inclined to such behaviour, as your posts often seem to, then I would suggest you have lost sight of what’s real and have indulged your own personal pain, for far too long.
LikeLike
I am puzzled by the ‘instances’ claim of mum’s happiness being put first and then the follow-up remark that its “certainly not a blanket phenomenon.”
Yes, it could be that both Natasha and Mike have both had very linear experiences but no one makes a fuss about women who are pre-occupied with the Female Agenda (we take that as ‘normal’ if not a legitimate course, these days).
However, I would just draw your attention to a giveaway remark by Butler-Sloss, at the Regent’s Park Conference (‘The Effects and the Implications for Contact’, 9th Nov 2001), where she made it clear that the mother’s mental health and stability were paramount and this could be ensured by granting mothers custody of any children.
The conference was sponsored by Children Law UK which has recently merged with TACT. I attended the conference and have the official transcript issued latter. I am sure if you contact Children Law UK they should be able to let you have an electronic version.
Despite granting candid interviews to the Press in the mid 2000s, in order to try to paint the judicary in a new light, we have to bear in mind that the latest foray by B-S is her damaging amendment to the current Children and Families bill and her misleading (ie lies) to Keith Vaz MP’s questions before a Select Committee, also in the same era – this “lady” (?) always prefers to stoop to conquer.
LikeLike
I wonder whether the answer would be the same if 95% (and not 5%) of the mothers mentioned lost custody ?
Put another way, did those studies (and how many ?), focus on mothers generally, or only on mothers who had lost custody of their children, so we could get a like-for-like comparison ?
I ask because the mental heath of single women with chidren is notoriously brittle if one examines the admission rates into mental institutions and for therapy.
So rather then being “. . . less prone to poor mental and physical health” I contend that the data shows they are the very opposite. This is not a new phenomena but can be traced back to Dr. Patricia Morgan’s work of some 20 years ago.
LikeLike
rwhiston:- I receive 3 or 4 new calls for help every day and double that number of following up cases.If you multiply by 365 ,that comes to well over 1000 new calls per year and that continually over 10 years !There have consistently been 5 main reasons for taking children into care from parents who have never committed a crime affecting their ability to care for their children;:-
1:- Domestic violence/sexual abuse.When this is reported the abused parent often suffers more than the abuser as he/she is blamed for” failing to protect children from witnessing violence that is often no more than shouting and screaming .! Consequently even when a new non violent partner is found and a new baby is born that child is taken for “risk of emotional abuse” !A parent who reports the other parent for sexually abusing a child is often disbelieved (on the balance of probabilities) and consequently loses the right to any contact with the child and prison for any breach of the court order;
2:-A parent is aggressive with social workers ,resents their “interference” and refuses to “engage with professionals” .A heinous sin causing a psychobabble charlatan to be called in and for a generous fee to diagnose the parent with some sort of personality disorder making them unfit to care for their children.
3:-An unexplained bruise or series of tiny fractures is found when the child is taken to hospital by careful parents who are rewarded for their devotion by the loss of all their children to State Care on the balance of probabilities (51%) .Just one injury is enough;”one strike and you are out” is the usual social worker’s mantra except when they fearfully ignore dangerous persons like those caring for baby P where there were over 60 strikes and still not out !
4:-Parents who have themselves been in care and suffered abuse and even rape are said to be too traumatised by their past to be fit to look after children.Similarly when parents have mild learning difficulties (or sometimes only one parent has these problems) and the babies are taken without giving the parents a chance to show that they can cope;
5:- A history of drug or alcohol abuse even when hair strand tests have shown that the problem has been cured.Children are taken because of the risk of a possible future relapse.
A new court regime of “No Punishment without crime” would largely eliminate these cruel injustices.
LikeLike
Often, many, most, frequently, are all relative terms but give us no concrete numbers so a ratio can be calculated. It would be helpful if you could quantify them.
LikeLike
Natasha, you write:
“I find that I am approached by both mothers and fathers in just about equal measure for assistance, but it would be interesting to know whether those of you who also help find the same thing. Do women prefer to go to women for help, do you find you are approached almost exclusively by men, as men yourselves?”
Men are reluctant to seek help because neither men nor women are generally prepared to help men in the way they instinctively help women. Let me give you an example. Erin Pizzey ran the world’s first refuge for battered women, in Chiswick, She was famously ousted by radical feminists, and then set up a number of other women’s refuges, with the support of some rich men. When she asked them for financial support to set up a refuge for battered men – 40% of the victims of domestic violence are men, and it’s long been known that women are at least as physically violent as men towards their intimate partners – the rich men collectively offered NOTHING.
Across the UK, there are over 4,000 places in refuges for battered women, and 15 for battered men (source: Mankind Initiative).
You really can’t make sense of these issues unless you are prepared to recognise that men and women are different, they’re treated differently, and where it can, the state always disadvantages men in order to advantage women. I’m not aware of one area where the state disadvantages women in order to advantage men. If you (or any commenters) know of any, please let me know. Thank you.
LikeLike
Hi Mike…. yes, I believe men and women are different. I think those differences are strengths and not weaknesses. I’m aware that men find it harder to reach out for help. That’s why I work with DadsHouse, which is now the leading organisation for single fathers. Why? Because it understands what kind of support men need and crucially doesn’t promote a father focused agenda, at the expense of mothers. Far too many movements are blinded by anger and frustration. DadsHouse stands out from the crowd, precisely because it comes from the most powerful place: complete understanding of the single father dynamic.
LikeLike
The Butler-Sloss amendment to the Children and Families bill sought to ensure the Bill does not create an expectation that “absent” parents (fathers) can demand a set amount of time with their child (fathers have never “demanded” a set amount of time only fair treatment and more time with their children than the paltry amount gifted them by courts).
Amendment 12, tabled in the Lords by Butler-Sloss, once the most senior family judge in England and Wales, seeks to change Clause 11 of the Bill, which had intended to enshrine an automatic right for a child to be parented by both parents, except in exceptional circumstances.
The Children and Families bill is now in its final death throes before it becomes law.
LikeLike
I am puzzled by the ‘instances’ claim and then the follow-up remark that its “certainly not a blanket phenomenon.”
Yes, it could be that both Natasha and Mike have had a very linear experience but no one makes a fuss about women who are pre-occupied with the Female Agenda (we take that as ‘normal’ if not a legitimate course, these days).
However, I would just draw your attention to a giveaway remark by Butler-Sloss, at the Regents Park Conference, ‘The Effects and the Implications for Contact’ (9th Nov 2001), where she made it clear that the mother’s mental health and stability were paramount and this could be ensured by granting mothers custody of any children.
The conference was sponsored by Children Law UK which has recently merged with TACT. I attended and have the official transcript issued latter. I am sure if you contact Children Law UK they should be able to let you have an electronic version.
LikeLike
My experience has not been linear, as suggested by the fact that I see all sorts of cases where both mothers and fathers have suffered at the hands of unjust bias.
LikeLike
All very interesting and illuminating. It has happened that the ‘mothers happiness’ has been paramount in custody and contact cases, and the children’s wishes and feelings put second, the dad last. But I have seen so many where the mother has been sidelined that I broadly agree with Natasha that men and women are shafted by the Family Courts. When a mother (it does seem usually that it’s a mother) refuses to send their kids to school, Judges have no compunction about sending her to prison. Why is it not so if a mother refuses a Court Order demanding that a Dad sees the children? Is it regarded as not so important?
Roger
LikeLike
Roger raises an interestiog point. Since before 2000 the LCD surveys and HO studies have looked into how courts have dealt with women and how those mothers think they have been treated by courts. This is obviously the result of pressure, probably on the basis that women felt courts were harsh places and not at all cuddly. There have been no comparable studies covering men’s disappintments, shall we say, in court procedures.
Probably both men and women feel shafted to a degree by the Family Courts (that is another matter), but when a parent (mother) refuses to send ‘her’ child to school there should be some sanctions imposed.
What I find incongruous is that the judges I sat with in committee for 2 years (2000 – 2002) had no intention of using the power they already had to ensure ‘contact’ took place, and when offered greater powers in 2002 by Rosie Winterton refused them saying that even if they were given they would never use them.
So to now read that judges have no compunction about sending mothers to prison over a lesser principle does confound me.
LikeLike