Poll Your Children And Your Abuser

[Hashi]

I think the child's physical safety is one consideration. It's possible to address that as people have said, by never allowing unsupervised access or allowing the abuser to have control of the child's whereabouts.

However, there's more to it for me. It's about a child building a relationship with a known abuser (however much the relationship is policed by others), how much the child is cautioned/the relationship is obviously restricted and what the child makes of that, what it means if the child knows nothing at all about the person in that sense, what the abuser makes of the relationship, what's happening emotionally, what's happening energetically, what effect it has on the child's parent for them and their child to be around the abuser - which the child is inevitably going to pick up on.

I realise this viewpoint might upset or even anger some people, but it's why I have a problem with the issue. Someone could say it's not my place to have a view when I'm not in the situation, but I'm thinking from the point of view of having been a child around family members with problems. Not all of them known to be abusers, but being kept an eye on for other reasons (like mental instability and compulsive stealing) which I didn't find out about until I was much older. I have a number of feelings about that, including how even as a dissociated child/adolescent I felt particularly uncomfortable around those people without having a reason why. I think I was sensing things from others as much as from the problem people themselves. I think my feelings would be multiplied many times if a history of abuse was in the picture.

 

[ms spock]

@AubreyReally sorry that you were badly let down by the courts. And awful for your children.

The Australian Family courts are a real problem in Australia. My psychiatrist and I have discussed this a bit and from time to time I meet another person.

There has even been a study done show that the safety of women and children is not properly taken into account in the judgements of these courts.

Those judges really need education.

 

[ms spock]

I am unlikely to have children while my father is alive, unless I move to another country first and can be certain I cannot be traced. Even though the likelihood of him trying is unlikely. I would rather be better safe than sorry. For my own sake as well as for that of any potential offspring.

I decided for a range of reasons not to have children. These being amongst them.

 

[ms spock]

My mother told me once that there had been discussion that no one should leave a little girl alone with my grandfather. Despite them knowing this we were left there.

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

As an adult, if people had have known that for example my grandfather was a pedophile and was likely abusive unless supervised, even if I was always supervised, when I discovered his true nature and that I had had to see him as a child, I would be disgusted at the him who I'd had to grow up around and angry that other caregivers had allowed the meetings. If it was under legal pressure, I'd want to disown the him and have nothing to do with him, I would feel grateful and sympathetic to the care-given, albeit a little angry though likely not at the caregiver but the system. Whether necessary legally or not, I would feel let down that my safety had been played and gambled with and my trust broken and manipulated to grow to love a pedophile. I would also feel hurt that I hadn't been told or, if I had been told why I should have still had to see him.

In my case no one knew my father was and I still feel that way. Disgusted at him and upset that no one knew and therefore didn't stop it. I feel upset that my grandmother knew some of it later (before the worst) and thought it was OK as it helped my father stay sane and then manipulated me in so many ways. But this is just me.

Please take no offense if you legally are required to allow your child to see an abuser. I think those system is wrong, that not only your concerns and history should be taken into account, but also the child's future (not just of abuse, but discovery their relative is a pedophile).

 

[ms spock]

I think that if we can have ways of making children safe from the child rapists in our families that is a really good thing. If it can be discussed openly- children can be kept safe.

There is a system I read about in New Zealand where the daughter can ring up and say I don't want my father to do what he did to me and the whole family becomes involved in monitoring the situation which is heaps better than the denial that takes place in majority of family now.

 

[Abstract]

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. The reason for that is it seems that those who suffer abuse almost always tell the story of the family going on as if nothing happened after they are told. It seems that way to me. There seldom seems to be a situation where the abuser is ostracised. I thought that would likely filter down a fair amount to the next generation.

The abuser seems to be kept in the family and remains accepted and the person who is abused is usually the one in trouble, treated with resentment or at worst is ostracised. It seems to me family will often do all in their power to protect their own experience of the family or their world view and at any cost. I suspect that is even more the case where the key family members have narcissistic or other empathy or "other"-view deficits. If that is the case then people around then are merely vessels to support their own pleasure. Maybe that happens a lot - children with healthy families are more often better protected.

There are also a lot of enablers of course. Also with issues of their own and who explain away or feel too much empathy for the abuser and are not able to put firm boundaries up. Often because they are afraid of conflict and so "keeping the peace" is in their own best interests or they are emotionally reliant on the abuser.

Maybe those that have PTSD are more wary in this regard. I thought more members would be doing it because of still being in the grips of their family culture and still being indoctrinated by the "rules" of the family.

There always seems to be such strong pressure to just get over it and get on with everyone as before whether there is supervision or not. My perception is anecdotally based so I could be wrong though.

 

[catjudo]

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. The reason for that is it seems that those who suffer abuse almost always tell the story of the family going on as if nothing happened after they are told. It seems that way to me. There seldom seems to be a situation where the abuser is ostracised. I thought that would likely filter down a fair amount to the next generation

Maybe people are just afraid to answer or respond honestly because there have been people who made such strong, generalized statements as, "Anyone who answers "yes" to this question doesn't deserve to have kids." Perhaps people feel that if they answer openly and honestly to this question they will be judged and further ostracized. Most of the people here deal with that enough in our real lives, we don't need that on an online forum, too.

 

[Abstract]

I do suspect that is part of it catjudo. I thought of that after. I just wanted to say too that just because people have opinions it doesn't mean that others don't have a right to theirs. Who knows who is right or wrong in the more blurry lines.

I think we would all agree though that allowing the abuser to have unsupervised access too ones children is wrong. I think calling it wrong is Ok. That doesn't mean that there are not a whole lot of reasons why it has happened. Especially this in my opinion:

still being in the grips of their family culture and still being indoctrinated by the "rules" of the family.

Many adults are still emotionally abused and in the grip of their families and haven't yet developed the ability to break away. I don't judge that in the way I think you mean. Will I say it is OK? No but I do realise there can be a lot of difficulties doing what one needs to do.

I certainly couldn't just decide to be assertive when I wanted to to start. It took years of hard work. It was still wrong of me not to put up boundaries when I was being hit or other things though.

I think we need to expect people to have strong opinions when they have been abused because noone put boundaries in place with known offenders.

 

[catjudo]

I think we would all agree though that allowing the abuser to have unsupervised access too ones children is wrong. I think calling it wrong is Ok. That doesn't mean that there are not a whole lot of reasons why it has happened.

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.

I'm just wondering if anyone allows their children to be around their abuser, and if so, how much and why?

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.

 

[Abstract]

It actually does not say anywhere that is only with supervised visits. It neither says supervised nor unsupervised. Both are therefore on-topic. The poll is open and therefore the topic too. After a while it was clear that Secret does this with supervision. There will be plenty of people who don't. We can see how often that happens from all the people on this site with PTSD because of situations like that. I agree that there is a world of difference between the two. I think you have to accept that people will still have strong opinions on the topic though. I realise it must be hard for you.

 

[Abstract]

Here is a hard question for you. If someone has children and is allowing them to have unsupervised access to their abuser through their own choice then should they continue to be in charge of their children and their welfare? Leave judgement as in "they are terrible people etc" out of it and just look at the situation.