- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
iwillbeok.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
26th August 2018 at 10:33 am #63178
iwillbeok
ParticipantI feel like a compass in the Bermuda triangle in an old black and white movie – spinning around unable to pinpoint North. My gut is shouting at me – much like it did at the end of my marriage but I have no evidence to trust it! But I don’t want to ignore my intuition – its what saved me in the first place!
Some back story – my ex (according to in-law relative) has not said anything to them about our split. I eventually had heart to heart with said in-law and felt heard and believed. I feel an amount of responsibility for this relative as believe they were subject of n**c abuse over their long marriage. Following our conversation, this relative posted what I saw as a slightly passive aggressive post on social media – I shrugged and let it go. A while later they posted a meme about parental alienation being child abuse – my heart just sank, I knew in my gut it was regarding my child refusing to see their father. Or was I just seeing red flags because I’m now hyper-vigilant? I want to trust my gut, but I have no evidence that this person is playing both sides. I have journaled about this and was feeling quite strong – that I am not responsible for this person.
Further contact with this person – again my spidey-senses (ha! sorry) were all over the place! Is this me learning to consciously recognise when I am being manipulated? I feel all shaken up and confused – a feeling I have never associated with this person before now. Having been gaslit and manipulated for so, so long in my abusive marriage; told I was naïve and unable to ‘read’ people (yet also accused of being highly manipulative of my abuser!) I am struggling to learn to trust myself again.
Iwillbeok x
-
27th August 2018 at 12:36 am #63192
Marsophollie
ParticipantThis is my next dread! I have two children, (detail removed by moderator) We are living in refuge and have been for (detail removed by moderator) . Neither children want to see there dad due to the abuse they have also suffered. I have applied for a non-mol and occupation order, neither of which have been granted yet so my husband is still in our jointly owned family home whilst we are living in a Refuge. They hate him at the moment.
-
27th August 2018 at 10:47 am #63199
freedomtochoose
BlockedHello both,
Just a few things. Finding it difficult to tell how old this post is.About the ‘senses’ bit. I do believe that those of us who have been through this sort of thing develop a heightened sense of when what they call ‘secondary abuse’ is happening. I have experienced it myself when something came up in a dream, or when I had a sense that something was wrong, didn’t know what and later, sometimes much later, realised that my gut instinct was right.
Secondly, about parental alienation. From what I have read and believe in the research around this, it happens much less than (men?) would like us to believe. I don’t know if the website still exists but Maypole Women had some links to information papers around this which were useful to me.
The point I’m trying to make around parental alienation is kind of – it helped me to look the thing straight in the face and focus on the facts. I do believe that parental alienation has been sensationalised in the media to a certain extent and to the detriment of women. When all a lot of us want is to protect our kids.
Not allowed to post links on here but maybe women’s aid might offer some info on this …
Sorry you are experiencing this rubbish….
ftc
x -
27th August 2018 at 5:14 pm #63211
iwillbeok
ParticipantMarsophollie – I am so sorry that you are going through this horrible experience. I was able to get a non-mol/occupation order and it was worth the wait and every penny. I truly hope your situation is sorted soon.
FTC – thank you for your reply (btw this post is only a day old). I have had further information that he believes that my child is being ‘fed’ the right things to say. That her messages have actually come from me! When I was the one who was trying very hard to discourage her from sending them. As this is exactly the can of worms I was hoping to avoid.
In the cold light of day, I believe my reaction to this relative is not an over-reaction. I will still be in contact with them, but will not be nearly so open with them again.
Iwillbeok x
-
28th August 2018 at 10:24 am #63233
freedomtochoose
BlockedHello there, the maypole women website seems to have disappeared from the net as they ran out of funding. The following is an extract from research produced by them originally which has appeared on another blog. If you google the title headings you should find the complete article. I’m just doing this this way as we are not allowed to post links. All best Ftc x
quote follows:
Mothers’ concerns ignored
Family courts often minimise or disregard mothers’ genuine concerns, yet there is a proven link between mothers’ (but not fathers’) concerns and children’s well being.
Contact decisions are much more likely to be supported by mothers if their concerns are listened to, respected, and incorporated into a contact plan which manages, rather than ignores, their perspective.
The limitations of coerced agreements
Whilst the law can order contact, or mediation encourage settlement, they cannot nurture trust, respect, good communication, or adequate parenting skills – the necessary requirements to make shared care work. When conflict is caused by domestic abuse, both parents are not equally empowered to end the conflict.
Living in two houses
Substantial shared care requires children to move from house to house. It is not possible to have two of everything, some things can’t easily be transferred, and some things ‘walk’. Constantly moving is time consuming and disruptive, and can be very stressful and disorientating for children, no matter how much they want to see both parents.
It is the child who does most of the physical and emotional work, not the adults. Living in two houses is frequently cited as being best for children by adults who have never actually tried it for themselves. In many cases children are divided equally or near equally even though the child did not see both parents equally before divorce.
Recognising the challenges of living in two houses for children is child-centred; refusal or resistance to acknowledge these challenges puts relationships with parents at the centre of the child’s life, rather than recognising children’s full range of needs, and how they are met.
Resistance to the misuse of power and control
Abusive fathers can use child contact to continue to control and coerce their ex partner, and child(ren) after separation. Despite this, children can still be bonded to an abusive parent, and may still want to have a relationship with him.
Finding a balance between promoting the father/ child relationship, and protecting the mother and child from further abuse can be challenging. Although the benefits of contact might conflict with a child’s need for protection, the family courts rarely order no contact. As result, women are frequently expected to hand over their children in situations where they have genuine fears for the child’s wellbeing.
In all other aspects of society knowingly putting a child at risk would be considered negligent. When women do not support contact in these circumstances, it is not the presence of the father they reject, but his attempts to deprive others of their autonomy and safety.
Children deserve the same level of protection from coercion and abuse in family law as they do in all other aspects of society.
Rejection, abandonment and loss
Anger is a natural reaction to the losses that the end of a relationship brings, and can be particularly acute for a parent who is on the receiving end of abuse or rejection. Preventing child contact as an expression of anger is to put the parent’s needs before the child’s, but so too is domestic violence and, arguably, the pursuit of personal relationships outside the family.
Therefore judging one parent’s behaviour in isolation, rather than in context of family dynamics, is to relieve the other parent of their share of responsibility.
Financial inequality
Mothers are much more likely to compromise their career to provide child care, which has a detrimental effect on their employment skills and earning potential. If the parents separate, financial settlements rarely cover the true value of lost income and pension.
If a mother loses her role as main carer at family break up, she will continue to have substantial financial commitments, in maintaining her home and continuing to provide for her child, yet maintenance payments will be reduced, and she will not qualify for child related benefits.
Unless substantial support is made available to women who have been financial disadvantaged as primary care giver, economic devastation will remain a pervading fear for many women. The concept of parental equality in family law practice can exacerbate inequality in living standards after separation.
Sharing care therefore represents a financial risk that some mothers simply cannot afford to take.
Institutionalised insensitivity to the maternal role
Mothers, as primary carers, have a biological, emotional and cognitive connection to their child’s needs. The identity of a primary carer is centred foremost on the child, and putting the child’s needs first. It is for this reason mothers are more likely to modify their working life to ‘juggle’ child care. Being a mother is ‘an identity and not just a job’ (Silva and Smart, 1999).quote ends.
-
29th August 2018 at 5:44 pm #63330
iwillbeok
ParticipantThanks FTC – interesting reading, makes a lot of sense.
iwillbeok x
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.