Protecting Our Children - BBC2 - 9pm - 30th Jan

[marley2580]

This is an interesting review https://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482.long#ref-34

Conclusions The data support the notion of a victim-to-victimiser cycle in a minority of male perpetrators but not among the female victims studied. Sexual abuse by a female in childhood may be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males.

In fact the highest figure I've found even among those studies that support the cycle of abuse is about 30%

There's actually a well established link between prostitution and sexual abuse - many survivors of abuse do have a cycle of abuse in that they continue to enter abusive relationships - this link is mostly apparent in domestic violence cases where women enter one abusive relationship after another. However this is different to the suggestion that most abusers were abused themselves, which I maintain is not true (and backed up even by your own quoted figures above).

 

[feeble]

It is well documented that children involved in abusive relationships as children go on to abuse, not all but statistically 40% in America, as the second link showed and probably 30% is an accurate amount in the uk

That is still a huge amount and shows why it is important to stop the cycle as early as possible and why abused children are kept an eye on in adulthood as they become parents.

 

[ttc_lolly]

I don't think anyone said ''most'' of them go on to continue the cycle of abuse marley2580, but when you think about the population of the world let's say, and how many out of that population were abused the number will be low. You then look at abusers and compare how many of those were abused as children themselves and then 30-40% is a massive figure in comparison to the rest of the abusers that were non-abused children in the population.

Hope that makes sense?!

 

[Lightworker]

Thanks for the links Feeble.

Marley what is prompting you to want to discount the "cycle of abuse"?

 

[Nibblenic]

It is well documented that children involved in abusive relationships as children go on to abuse, not all but statistically 40% in America, as the second link showed and probably 30% is an accurate amount in the uk

That is still a huge amount and shows why it is important to stop the cycle as early as possible and why abused children are kept an eye on in adulthood as they become parents.

My Oh and his siblings/half siblings were all on the CP registrar and abused in various ways by their mutual father.
Both my Hv's have taken a huge interest into how OH is doing with fatherhood. They have asked me and him many questions separately. I dont know if they knew (as OH has changed his name) but we were honest when they asked about our own childhoods.

Oh could not be a better Father and I am so incredibly proud of him. I think he would say is that before he had Lo he dealt with his own demons and that is the big difference, he really couldnt be a better farther or partner.
However out of his other 3 male siblings 1 from what we know is a brilliant devoted Dad and the other two have had their children removed from their lives. Either via SS or by women who did the right thing and protected themselves and their children

 

[marley2580]

Thanks for the links Feeble.

Marley what is prompting you to want to discount the "cycle of abuse"?

I have worked with hundreds of survivors over the years through various organisations and my own experience (and the experience of those I work with) suggests that the opposite is true - that most survivors will go out of their way to ensure that their own children never experience abuse. As I said, I am not saying that it never happens, but I simply do not believe that it is as common as most people think. Given that many surveys etc put the child abuse stats as approximately one in four, then a statistic of 30% of abusers that have been abused themselves would suggest that survivors are no more likely to abuse than anyone else.

I also think that keeping an eye on survivors 'just in case' is an awful suggestion and must make them feel like they're being treated like a ticking time bomb. They are not criminals and should not be treated as such. JMO

 

[feeble]

Thanks for the links Feeble.

Marley what is prompting you to want to discount the "cycle of abuse"?

I have worked with hundreds of survivors over the years through various organisations and my own experience (and the experience of those I work with) suggests that the opposite is true - that most survivors will go out of their way to ensure that their own children never experience abuse. As I said, I am not saying that it never happens, but I simply do not believe that it is as common as most people think. Given that many surveys etc put the child abuse stats as approximately one in four, then a statistic of 30% of abusers that have been abused themselves would suggest that survivors are no more likely to abuse than anyone else.

I also think that keeping an eye on survivors 'just in case' is an awful suggestion and must make them feel like they're being treated like a ticking time bomb. They are not criminals and should not be treated as such. JMO

Unfortunately it DOES run in cycles though and it is more important to protect future children and stop the cycle, than it is to make people feel like they dont require some support.

Bascially, as a previous poster has pointed out, if you have nothing to worry about, you are not going to mind someone coming and speaking to you and having a look.

Given that many many children are now removed from abusive families before the abuse is too ingrained, i think the 30/40% statistic is staggering.

 

[Lightworker]

Thanks for the links Feeble.

Marley what is prompting you to want to discount the "cycle of abuse"?

I have worked with hundreds of survivors over the years through various organisations and my own experience (and the experience of those I work with) suggests that the opposite is true - that most survivors will go out of their way to ensure that their own children never experience abuse. As I said, I am not saying that it never happens, but I simply do not believe that it is as common as most people think. Given that many surveys etc put the child abuse stats as approximately one in four, then a statistic of 30% of abusers that have been abused themselves would suggest that survivors are no more likely to abuse than anyone else.

I also think that keeping an eye on survivors 'just in case' is an awful suggestion and must make them feel like they're being treated like a ticking time bomb. They are not criminals and should not be treated as such. JMO

I will make an assumption (please correct me) that you work with an organization that is concerned with the rehabilitation, wellbeing or similar of child abuse victims, right? Either that or that you work in close proximity with them, but for another reason.

Is it not fair to say that any victim of child abuse that ACTIVELY seeks out help, is bound not to repeat the cycle? By virtue of their recognition of the damage done to them, they are less inclined to inflict it on someone else? What about those that don't seek help? Maybe the reason that the "majority" of the abuse victims you see don't perpetuate abuse is because they are the ones who are fully aware of the effects of it. Just because you are exposed to these, does not mean the others who are still suffering, and abusing their own children don't exist. Arrg struggling to explain myself well but hope you get my drift.

Are you completely ignoring how under-reported child abuse is? Ok, take away all this talk of statistics and surveys etc (lol I get lost in methodological jargon) but take two children. One grew up in a nice home, loving, supportive parents. The other grew up with a drunk of a father, an abusive mother, and a horrible "uncle". Which of these two is more likely to commit abuse?

Where does that leave your "an abused child is no more likely to commit abuse than one who didn't experience abuse"?

I also don't agree that people should be "watched out" for on account of their past, but if science shows that they pose a higher risk..surely then it is justified?

 

[feeble]

the first link i posted, was a very interesting article by a doctor who was explaining that in cases of sexual abuse, the abused can suffer with a lack of satisfaction from relationships in the future and that this can lead to them abusing as they are seeking for satisfaction from sexual encounters which they have failed to find in mutual appreciative relationships.

He goes on to say that the inablity to trust and be trusted ends up creating a cycle where the abused seeks out a relationship that bypasses the cycle of trust and trusting and instead focuses on revictimisation, where the abused becomes the abuser.

Very sad but explains it well.

There is a family who live near to me, back in the 70s, the mother fled leaving son and father, the father was an abusive, nasty drunk. The boy was frequently seen, clutching windows in just a nappy late at night, just waiting for daddy to come home. Completely in the darkness

The boy was not removed from his father

Now that boy is a father, he has two children, the mother has fled and him, his father and the two kids live in the same house. The father and grandfather stay up late at night, smoking weed and drinking, they then sleep til 3 in the afternoon leaving a 2 and a 4 year old alone in a house full of random bits of metal, drugs and broken glass

Sometimes it is 3pm before the younger child has a nappy change.

It is an exact replica to what the boy suffered as a child. And its happening again.

 

[kimberleywats]

i must say of the documentary, it always portrays young parents, i was a single mum at 15, in a childrens home too, and soon as i turned 16- i was "no longer a concern" to social srrvices, admittedly i was a good mum, and i managed 2 cope, but as i had no family and had only living in the town for a few months, i should hav been given more support, my sons 1st few years of life were a struggle, for us both, me financially, and him and me being so isolated, its hard enough for a teen mum to ask for help, as we are always instantly judged, (jus cos we're young and stupid enough to get preggo). social services have ther qualities, its distressing to see that parents raise their children like that, (i admired the mothers "cleanin-up" technique, which involved no bending or exersion at all!! jus swiftly kick all the childs toys out the way with one foot and voila!! clean) WHAT THE HELL! I was relieved that the boy had been taken, but from my personal experience, i was left wanting to be honest....

maybe they just have to prioritise, and they knew i didnt require the extra help, but i've seen young women who can/have slipped so fast into bad habits, wrong crowds and not bein a mum! it happens!! am eternally grateful that they took me out of a volitile situation as a child, and i will never hand down abuse and neglect "because all victims apparently think thats normal) (BULLSHIT) i have been lucky enough to have the strength to be a positive parent (now also a teaching assistant(PT) and a childminder(FT) (aswell as looking after my own fantastic 3 (jack 9~~ alicia 6~~theo 5months)
my experience with social services wasnt an excellent one....but the children on the show have obviously been helped immensely, x

 

[marley2580]

I actually am now going to step away from this thread as I don't think we will agree and I really can't be bothered fighting it out. Plus I'm hormonal and don't want to get het up, as I inevitably will.

I will however say this. Feeble, I know that you are very interested in home ed - there is an argument that is often trotted out to say that local authorities should be able to regularly inspect home educators and expect certain things - the argument being that if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't be worried about being inspected. Obviously there are one hell of a lot of home educators that have a problem with this proposed intrusion into their private family lives - surely you can see that the same would apply to survivors of abuse? The argument that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear has been used to justify a general chipping away of civil liberties and rights.

 

[feeble]

I have personally no more problem with social services entering my home, than i would for them to enter a school.

I think frankly, it is people getting all up in arms about not a lot. Social workers are NOT evil beasts who want to take children away with no reason, the aim is to prevent abuse and protect families.

 

[Hellylou]

I know that social workers do a very valuable job, and I applaud them for it, but I find the idea of them checking up on parents who have suffered some form of abuse as children themselves rather unpleasant. Unless they have a valid reason to suspect abuse in a household I don't think they have any right to interfere. Just because you have nothing to hide, it doesn't make it any less intrusive or insulting to make a generalised assumption that you are likely to hurt your own children just because you were the victim of abuse yourself as a helpless child. Victims of abuse will most likely feel enough misplaced guilt and self loathing, without authorities making wild assumptions about their own parenting skills. It's as if they are devalued for life.

 

[Lightworker]

i must say of the documentary, it always portrays young parents, i was a single mum at 15, in a childrens home too, and soon as i turned 16-, x

Maybe its just symbolic of the belief (right or wrong) that most parents involved with the SS are young. Saying that, I think it would have helped if they had at least shown one older struggling parent.

 

[smelly07]

i must say of the documentary, it always portrays young parents, i was a single mum at 15, in a childrens home too, and soon as i turned 16-, x

Maybe its just symbolic of the belief (right or wrong) that most parents involved with the SS are young. Saying that, I think it would have helped if they had at least shown one older struggling parent.

Maybe they were the only ones willing to be filmed.......???


how old were they? no one on there looked 'young' actually i didnt assume the situation was anything to go with their age or they were purposely trying to portray young parents in a bad light at all x

 

[feeble]

they all looked mid-twenties/early 30s to me

I actually thought at one point how good it was that it wasnt all 15 year olds on drugs or whatever x

 

[Natasha2605]

i must say of the documentary, it always portrays young parents, i was a single mum at 15, in a childrens home too, and soon as i turned 16-, x

Maybe its just symbolic of the belief (right or wrong) that most parents involved with the SS are young. Saying that, I think it would have helped if they had at least shown one older struggling parent.

Maybe they were the only ones willing to be filmed.......???


how old were they? no one on there looked 'young' actually i didnt assume the situation was anything to go with their age or they were purposely trying to portray young parents in a bad light at all x

I didn't think any of them were that young either, or at least their age wasn't portrayed in a way that was trying to say that was part of the problem as some programmes do

I really enjoyed this program, does anyone know if they plan to do more?

 

[smelly07]

me too, they may do one every year, i was disappointed it was such a short series, i thought this thread may continue for quite some time i have really enjoyed it and dont want this thread to end!!! x

 

[ttc_lolly]

Let's keep it alive for smelly

I really enjoyed it too. I hope there are more series, possibly filming different social services other than Bristol, it'll be interesting to see the difference in areas and policies from one council to the next.

 

[Lellow]

Id like to see cases in London and in cities up north, like in Bradford or Manchester.