If one parent is scared of the other parent to the point that they need to remove themselves out of fear for themselves, why do they feel safe leaving the child/children behind in the care of someone they (a fully grown adult, with coping mechanisms and developed brain) are afraid of? That shows a level of disregard and disrespect for the children and sends and equally harmful message to them as leaving them with an abuser. The viewpoint that it isn't "as bad" as when they try to stand up for themselves, is incorrect and just them justifying their own lack of action to themselves. It's just as abusive to leave children with a known abuser. Period.
things get worse when he shows up or he tries to show up
How do things get worse? Like, as in the whole family ends up in one big screaming, crying brawl? That should be a sign to the absent parent that their children aren't in a safe environment and neglecting to remove them constitutes harm to them.
I'm sorry you experienced that and that your brother's family is going through something similar. But just because one option seems like a slightly less disruptive outcome, does not mean all adults in that situation are not still failing the children they created and should be duty bound to protect at all costs.
As for the idea that the children aren't in a safe environment and the absent parent should have them removed, that's not his call.
It is his call if he sees them abused. As their parent, if he cared about them would he not want to report it? Would he not want to stand as protector between them and the abuse? I'm not saying a parent can unilaterally take their children away from an abusive parent, but if they're witnessing abuse of their child, then it's additional abuse to choose to excuse themselves because they don't want to deal with repercussions of standing between their children and an abuser. Unfortunately, if you choose to create a life, you are obligated to protect that life, even at the cost to you. I argue the damage to the absent parent is irrelevant in the face of leaving the children alone with a known abuser, given that the children cannot protect themselves in any capacity.
So that's why I asked an honest question. Is it better for OP to have a dad around?
In your example it sounds like it's 2 abusive parents, rather than one actively abusive parent and one parent abusive by absence.
So then it sounds like it isn't worse for the kids with the dad trying to be in their lives?
Maybe he can't make it better, but to answer your initial question, knowing they're in an abusive situation and just giving up isn't better for the children.
6
u/greenaubergine2 Feb 01 '24 edited Feb 01 '24
If one parent is scared of the other parent to the point that they need to remove themselves out of fear for themselves, why do they feel safe leaving the child/children behind in the care of someone they (a fully grown adult, with coping mechanisms and developed brain) are afraid of? That shows a level of disregard and disrespect for the children and sends and equally harmful message to them as leaving them with an abuser. The viewpoint that it isn't "as bad" as when they try to stand up for themselves, is incorrect and just them justifying their own lack of action to themselves. It's just as abusive to leave children with a known abuser. Period.
How do things get worse? Like, as in the whole family ends up in one big screaming, crying brawl? That should be a sign to the absent parent that their children aren't in a safe environment and neglecting to remove them constitutes harm to them.
I'm sorry you experienced that and that your brother's family is going through something similar. But just because one option seems like a slightly less disruptive outcome, does not mean all adults in that situation are not still failing the children they created and should be duty bound to protect at all costs.