Poll Your Children And Your Abuser

[catjudo]

That's not the conversation I chose to join. The question was about allowing children to be around your abuser. Responding to it by only considering unsupervised access is either changing or at least making assumptions about the question. And I'm not directing that at you or your follow up questions, but more at the reactions that other people have had. I shared my experience as it related to the original question without making assumptions. The thread has obviously taken a turn and is focusing more on unsupervised access. That is fine, but not a conversation I want to be a part of. I need to walk away from this.

 

[Abstract]

I think you need to consider that excluding unsupervised access is changing it just as much. That doesn't mean you have to discuss it but it is on topic for others unless Secret changes the poll question. It might be best to walk away and take care if yourself. I find that is the best thing for me if the topic is too raw. Hopefully you will find Ms Spocks posts comforting.

 

[digger]

I think it's quite interesting that so few people are choosing the option of still being in contact. It's a bit surprising to me.

I think you also need to take into consideration the demographic of people this is being asked to. This site will have a higher percentage of people who have been abused and who wish to change things than if you asked a more general population sample. A large number of people come to this site because they are trying to fix the problems that abuse has left them with... It follows that they will want to change things for their children also. Whether that be through supervising contact or denying it.

 

[Abstract]

higher percentage of people who have been abused and who wish to change things

Thanks digger. This was also half formed in my mind and you articulated it well. This site does contain those that are facing up to it in one way or other. There are sure to be more of those who continue unsupervised contact in the group who are not getting any help.

I always think of that when it comes to the supporter section. I suspect the site mostly consists of supporters whose other halves are not getting help and those with PTSD who are working on change and who don't have much support from family or spouses.

 

[ms spock]

But that is not the question that this thread addresses. Nowhere was it asked if anyone allows their abuser to have unsupervised access to their kids. The question was merely if anyone allows their children to be around their abuser. These are two different things, IMO.

They are two different things catjudo.

And, IMO, to suggest that a parent doesn't deserve to have their kids is more than an opinion. It is a very strong, hurtful comment to make without having all of the facts.

That is true catjudo and to be so brave and honest you have brushed up some harsh comments must be hard.

My hope is that your modelling protection of your child will enable other people to protect their children as well. You are a trailblazer in a way because you are protecting the next generation and modelling it for the next generation.

If I had had one person in my family like that my life would have been very different.

 

[Hashi]

Personally, I would prefer this to stay on the theme on supervised visits, because for me there are so many unananswered questions around that. I feel that talking about unsupervised visits conveniently draws attention away from that.

I agree with Kas, what is someone going to feel if they have been put in a position of developing a relationship with someone whose (very serious) history they didn't know?

I haven't read anything here to make me think that supervised visits are a great idea for the child concerned. Only that they get around various problems that the adults have. How does this benefit the child? If someone thinks I'm judgemental or misinformed, then please inform me.

 

[Abstract]

The abuser seems to be kept in the family and remains accepted

Indirectly in my mind one of the things I was thinking of was how a programme that encourages the family to accept the abuser more and keep them in the family (encouraged supervised exposure) is going to mean one more child is protected or make anyone more responsible. I may not be understanding the type of programme being suggested but am struggling to see how it would protect one child and can only see it increasing the amount of children that are kept exposed to their abuser. Even if it stops further abuse they are going to be constantly exposed to triggers and it could have huge psychological effects on their recovery.

Family are already either 1/ likely to want nothing to do with the abuser and keep their children away, 2/ do supervised visits anyway, or 3/ often have issues that make it unlikely that they would connect to a programme like this or be capable of enforcing reliable supervision. Even if they have assertiveness issues the abuser is likely to be dominant and manipulative and be able to get around controls (group 3).

Abusers are most often already still kept in the family and it is the abused that is usually ostracised from what I can tell. Is anyone that has enough issues that they would normally ostracise a child harmed who has the courage to tell going to be transformed into someone capable of caring enough about the child's well-being to manage supervision closely and diligently enough?

It's not as if any abuser is going to tell everyone what they have done and to encourage others to believe the child. They would quite likely already be accepted by the group that is most concerning and are never going to give themselves away. It sounds a little like putting an OK stamp on what often happens already or relying on not very motivated people to protect a child. Group 1/ and 2/ are already motivated so they are not relevant when it comes to the programme.

I wish I could put this clearly into words but I can't find a way to do it. My brain is bubbling. I of course may be getting the entire wrong end of the stick about the suggested programme and about the issues that put people in harms way. I am also not doubting for one second that supervised is better than unsupervised. I just cannot get my head around how encouraged supervised contact is a good thing or is going to protect anyone from abuse that would not already be protected without the programme.

I know others here are talking about the hidden issues with supervised contact. The distress of finding out that everyone knew a family member was an abuser and yet still placed them in the position where they developed a relationship with the person. Leaving them with potential feelings of betrayal after and discomfort whilst growing up. I think these are very legitimate opinions but I am afraid I am not up to the discussion so will leave it to others.

I think conversations about supervised and unsupervised contact are both important and one doesn't have to detract from the other.

 

[Abstract]

OK. I realise I have no children but I am now decided about if it is ever a OK to allow ones child to have supervised contact with a suspected or known s*xual predator. For the reasons that first concerned me.

I have just read a thread on the discussion board that describes a situation where there was the intention of supervised exposure only and a child ended up abused. I am sure there are different levels of supervision and not everyone may be describing the same thing with the word but it seems to me a little like allowing the child to get used to a viper or crocodile and then hoping something doesn't go wrong at some point. Also saying vipers and crocodiles are not that dangerous as if mum and dad are around them and they allow me then it should be OK. I find it all quite distressing. :(

How do we define supervised? It seems to me there needs to be no physical contact and I have say even then I have had terrible creepy feelings from being around people like this. We can tell when there is sexual intent and that alone can be a boundary violation.

 

[digger]

I've come back to this thread quite a bit but I can't really get my thoughts together with what I want to say on it.

What I can say from the view point of someone who as a child was exposed to both supervised and unsupervised contact with known paedophiles is that as an adult I really resent those that allowed this.

As a parent I know that there are sometimes things that make this question more complicated. My son's father for example was abusive towards me, three years of fighting my son's corner through police, solicitors, CAFCASS, courts etc for contact to at the very least be supervised until my ex proved himself to be stable, I can tell you it's not an easy fight and doesn't always get the 'right' results.

My mother was/is emotionally abusive with me. My son does have contact with her, but I have always been very watchful of her treatment of him.

I have not allowed contact with the people I was made to have contact with as a child except for on one unavoidable and highly supervised occasion.

 

[digger]

What I can say from the view point of someone who as a child was exposed to both supervised and unsupervised contact with known paedophiles is that as an adult I really resent those that allowed this.

I think I want to say as well that even though I was not personally abused by one of these people and as far as I remember wasn't ever left with him unsupervised (although my childhood memory is not good so I can't be entirely sure of this), I still resent that I was put in that position at all by people responsible for my welfare.

 

[Abstract]

I was thinking more and I was also exposed to abusers in the family who didn't do anything to me but although I have always just accepted that is the way it was it did make me feel uncomfortable. It was a bit different as I don't think anyone knew at the relevant time for me, except for those being abused and that is totally and completely different. I don't have that sense of betrayal but I can certainly imagine having it. Digger, I can understand your resentment.

 

[digger]

Several 'responsible' adults knew in the instances I am talking about.