Why are there more Fathers Rights’ Organisations than Mothers?

Tracey McMahon from the She Project – a Mother Apart

Posted in child contact, family courts | Leave a comment

Picking apart the mother-blaming that takes place with abused mothers

I’ve been working on a theme that is to do with unhelpful/punitive/harmful responses to mothers who have become, or are at risk of becoming, separated from their children in a context of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) (mothers apart for short). I am arguing that these responses stem from mother-blaming and involve attitudes, beliefs, values and perceptions that are influenced by culture, society, theories and the media. I also argue that blaming mothers apart can lead to secondary abuse/coercion, re-victimisation and re-traumatisation, and relates to the dearth of support for this at-risk population of mothers apart who are largely a marginalised and stigmatised vulnerable group of women with complex needs that are currently not being met by services/interventions.

These are arguments that I have made before (although not so developed) in the Mothers Apart Project (MAP) Workshop that I created (with collaboration from MATCH Mothers), and piloted last year in Coventry, and at a recent practice development seminar that I gave at King’s College London to a group of practitioners as part of the Making Research Count partnership between KCL and University of Bedfordshire. These were both invaluable experiences for my research project as both were attended by a range of practitioners, especially social workers, from whom I learned much. Their responses and feedback to my work has helped me to appreciate the nature of mother-blaming that leads to unhelpful/punitive/harmful responses to mothers apart, in much greater detail than I previously understood it.

I have observed that mother-blaming (related to mothers apart) involves a way of thinking about women victims/survivors of DVA, who are abused mothers, as follows:

  • A rigid belief that women freely choose to stay with their abuser when they are, in fact, easily able to leave safely. This belief does not take into account the complexity of why women stay, or don’t leave, which is not at all black and white.
  • This belief co-occurs with another belief that abused mothers freely choose their abusers over their own children when they are given an ultimatum by the state. Again, this belief is highly simplistic and fails to consider a range of reasons why women may make such a decision.
  • A perception of motherhood as a totally selfless, all-giving occupation where a woman’s needs must always come second to her child’s needs, which is largely based on Eurocentric, middle-class beliefs about an ideal childhood rather than the reality of the child’s life or actual needs (usually to be with its mother when she is the primary carer).
  • A biased attitude towards scrutinising mothers’ behaviour from a critical position that judges from an impossibly high standard of mothering, which the average mother in the UK is not able to achieve (because it relates to the point above, that this standard is idealistic rather than realistic).
  • A valuing of attachment theory to blame development problems on the type of secure or insecure bond that the abused mother has cultivated with her baby/child. The use of this theory does not apportion blame to the DVA perpetrator who negatively impacts the mother’s parenting and, in fact, the DVA perpetrator who is the child’s father may even be given primary care of the child if the state decides that the mother’s parenting is not good enough when she has ‘failed to protect’. (This is because violent/abusive men can still considered to be good enough fathers in the UK family courts).
  • A judgemental attitude towards abused mothers where a deficit model of mothering draws upon attachment theory to blame, rather than a strengths-based model using attachment theory to highlight the numerous and creative ways that mothers are able to protect their children from DVA. So, although attachment theory is likely to be used to support the removal of a woman’s children, it might not be used to support and preserve the mother-child relationship when there is DVA.
  • A belief that women commonly make up allegations of DVA and child sexual abuse (CSA) during family court proceedings and that this is due to ‘parental alienation (PA)/parental alienation syndrome (PAS). This belief stems from ignorance about how PA/PAS has become a tool used by DVA perpetrators to conceal their violence, and continue their control and abuse through the weaponisation (Evan Stark’s term) of children in the family courts. This belief has almost become an article of faith in the family courts to the extent that women are now being warned not to report DVA and CSA in case they are accused of PA/PAS, when the outcome is likely to be that the child will be placed in the care of the father even when he is a DVA perpetrator (see above).
  • A perception of abused mothers as ‘unfit mothers’ who are also likely to have a range of stereotypes conferred upon them, that fit with the ‘toxic trio’ (DVA, substance misuse, mental health problems) opinion. With this perception, comes a failure to recognise the effects of DVA that can be misdiagnosed as mental health problems or personality disorders, or the fact that substance use might be a way of coping with DVA or that the woman may be coerced into using substances in order to entrap or blame her. This perception can be fixed without acknowledging that abused mothers’ parenting usually improves when the DVA perpetrator is removed from the situation.
  • A valuing of the individualised approach to health and social care that omits to consider the social/cultural factors of DVA, which leads to blaming women for the DVA that is perpetrated towards them and pathologising them (see above).
  • An attitude that is biased towards removal of care from the mother as an effective form of early intervention (sometimes as a form of defensive practice). This attitude fails to recognise the importance of the mother-child relationship for the protection of, and recovery from, DVA for both mother and child (see Emma Katz’s work), or that mother protection is often the best form of child protection, which many key figures in DVA scholarship keep telling us (e.g. Liz Kelly, Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft, to name a few).

During my research project, I have observed and learned of these attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions held by a wide range of professionals at the intersection of DVA services, health and social care, and the family courts (private and public). I argue for the need for DVA training that includes an understanding of how violence and abuse is a risk factor for mother-child separation. I have identified mother-child separation due to coercive control based DVA using children as a serious problem right now that is largely not recognised by professionals/services/organisations, and that specialised training is required in order to use the new coercive control legislation to combat this problem. I also argue for the need for specialised support for mothers apart who have experienced mother-child separation due to coercive control based DVA using children. Currently, I only know of the charity, MATCH Mothers, which provides emotional support to mothers apart, and WomenCentre in Calderdale and Kirklees, which is an exemplary service offering support that is specific to mothers apart.

Posted in mother-blaming | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

They are still thinking of the child all the time and they’re living on the hope that their partner will change

January 2016 and I’m immersed in my interview data once again. I only conducted a preliminary analysis before the workshop and now I’m exploring them in-depth. Some of the professionals I spoke to are so amazing – such wonderful, caring, empathic, compassionate, extraordinary people. If only all vulnerable people were lucky enough to encounter such individuals.

Today, I read the excerpt that follows and it brought tears to my eyes. I immediately wanted to share it and I contacted the professional who gave me permission to post it here. I wanted to share it for all the mums out there, including mums apart, who have been made to feel bad as a mother because they have not been able to leave an abusive relationship – for whatever reason.

Interviewer: and you said there about that mum – that she was a good mum – and a lot of people would say, “well, she’s not a good mum if she’s in a domestic violence relationship” – what would you say about that?

Participant: I would say that’s not true. I think, you know, if the mum has an attachment to her child, if the mum puts her child first and meets all its needs, in terms of health and everything. But the mum is herself a victim, I feel, and often, like I said, they’ve not…… It’s a difficult one but I do believe that mum can absolutely put her child first, whilst still being very, very scared and fearful, and sometimes equate that leaving would be worse for the child. I know this one mum in particular who keeps saying, “the only alternative is to go home with my alcoholic abusive parents and my child will not be happy there, the other alternative is that we’re homeless, and the other alternative is that my child will never see her father And it’s important that they have their father….” So you know, they are still thinking of the child all the time and they’re living on the hope that their partner will change, and that things will be better and that they can be a family. And that’s all that they ultimately want. Yes, it might be naïve and it might be misinformed sometimes but I don’t believe it’s deliberate. And like I say, when you’re dealing with a chronic history of abuse, they don’t know any better and their self worth is very low. And I think with a lot of mums that I’ve met, if ever the abuse has gone towards their children, that’s when they’ve had the courage to straightaway leave because it’s not about them. They don’t care so much about themselves and they’re thinking, “Well, I don’t mind that he’s abusive to me and I probably deserve it” because their self-esteem and self-worth is so low. But they wouldn’t want anything ever to happen to their children and if the partner ever directs any thing towards the children – they’re out, but they are not always seeing the fact that they are being emotionally abused or that, you know, with the child present it’s the same, but I think that education could help with that. But yes, I would totally disagree – I still think mums can care for their children but not always realise the implications of being in an abusive relationship – or see that it is worse for the child than the alternative, which for them is extremely fearful. And they do fear sometimes for their lives if they leave -and then they would be thinking, well, their child will be without a mum – so yeah, that would be my argument on that one.

Posted in domestic abuse, interviews | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

2015 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,400 times in 2015. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Getting help can be challenging when an abused mind is a confused mind

Accessing the right kind of help and support can sometimes be difficult for mothers who are at risk of becoming separated from their children. They might not know where to go or who they can talk to, especially if they are frightened that getting help with domestic violence, substance abuse or mental health problems will put them at risk of having their children removed from their care.

Mothers might experience extreme levels of fear, anger and stress when there is risk of mother-child separation that can make engaging with services difficult. They may not know which service is appropriate, especially if they do not have evidence of violence or have not identified domestic abuse when it is of the non-physical type.

A controlling, coercive partner might have threatened the lives of them and their children or told them that if they leave or go for help they will never see their children again. They may not realise that their mental health problems or substance misuse are caused by the abuse they endure, particularly if they are being psychologically abused by a partner who is encouraging drug and alcohol use, isolates them from family, friends and sources of support, and makes them believe they are worthless. An abusive man may tell them and everyone else that they are an ‘unfit mother’. He might make false allegations about them if they do find the courage to go for help. A mother might find herself being scrutinised by the local authorities, accused of violence and abuse when it is she who is the real victim. A woman might come to believe what her abuser tells her and blame herself.

A mother may become separated from her children despite her best efforts to protect them. Her ex-partner might turn her children against her out of revenge or punishment or just because he enjoys the feeling of being powerful and in control, post-separation and in perpetuity. A perpetrator may even decide that his ex-partner deserves the ultimate punishment for leaving him and will choose to kill her. If it is his intention to cause her the maximum amount of mental anguish he might spare her life and separate her from her children by killing them instead or by programming the children to hate and despise her – and refuse all contact. Men who annihilate their families often do not have a history of domestic violence. Coercive control is strongly linked with revenge attacks like these but there is often no evidence, which makes it incredibly difficult for a mother to get the right kind of help even when she knows something is wrong.

Women sometimes talk about knowing something is wrong but not being able to put a finger on anything specific. Victims of violence and abuse can become seriously mentally ill when their abuser is playing mind games with them – controlling every aspect of their life through coercive control, emotional and psychological abuse, and gaslighting. It can be hard to know what type of help to look for when the abuse is sometimes so intangible, indescribable, especially when an abused mind is a confused mind.

The ‘use of children’ is common in these tactics and children can be used as a means to an end, especially in strategies of revenge and punishment when women manage to escape their abusers. Many women also experience mother-child separation when their abuser ends the relationship also though. No matter no who left whom, a determined, coercively controlling, abusive man can engineer a situation in which children never have contact with their mother again. This is really not that difficult to do but very difficult to get help with.

Mothers who have become separated from their children in such situations didn’t get help until it was much too late. As described, women just may not realise that they are living with domestic abuse when it is not obvious. Additionally, this can be because these tactics of grooming and coaching children involve secrecy, lies and manipulation where turning children against their mothers is done without the her even realising it is happening. This can happen when the parenting is shared and there is less opportunity to recognise the abuse. However, this can also happen when mum is the primary carer. This might be hard to imagine but it happens.

Posted in help | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Opposing paradigms in child contact and domestic violence

I came across a neat summary today of the key debates between fathers’ rights groups (FRGs) and men’s rights activists (MRAs) versus DV advocates/feminist researchers in the field of child contact and domestic violence.

The messages of FRGs and MRAs have been incredibly influential in the media, with the public and in the family courts, of course. It is now a common perception in the family law and child protection arenas that mothers routinely fabricate reports of DV (and child sexual abuse) in order to alienate fathers who are unfairly treated in the family courts.

Table 1 by Jaffe, Lemon and Poisson (2003) shows two sides of an academic divide with FRGs and MRAs on one side and researchers and activists working to end men’s violence against women and children on the other.

Issue Fathers’ Rights Groups Domestic Violence Advocates
Post-separations parenting arrangements Shared parenting is best Shared parenting endangers abused women
Prevalence of domestic violence Domestic violence is exaggerated Domestic violence is underreported
Nature of violence Women are as violent as men Male violence is more severe, more injurious, and causes greater risk to life
Allegations of domestic violence Allegations are false, used to bolster custody claims Mothers are punished for raising allegations and counter-accused of being alienators
Family court bias Bias against men Bias against women and domestic violence

Table 1. Fathers’ Rights Groups and Domestic Violence Advocates (from Jaffe, Lemon and Poisson 2003: 12)

Sexist and misogynistic practice by men and women alike is an unfortunate reality in many spheres of work. Some workers may be operating under misguided notions of addressing the balance of alleged bias against fathers when they are influenced by the key messages of FRGs and MRAs. But there is no bias against men and fathers in the family courts as shown recently in a study by Maebh Harding at University of Warwick.

Jaffe, P. G., Lemon, N. K. D., and Poisson, S. E. (2003) Child Custody and Domestic Violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Posted in child contact, family courts | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

MAP Workshop Data Analysis and Initial Thoughts

An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from the MAP Workshop has now been conducted using selective coding from grounded theory methods. This PhD research project is a multi-phasic study using an Intervention Mapping (IM) Approach, comprising three data sets in total. This is the third and final data set that will be synthesised in the final analysis.

Quantitative data

Quantitative data comprised pre- and post-workshop questionnaires using performance objectives and programme outcomes identified in the IM process. These were completed prior to MAP Workshop by email and at the end of the workshop on the day.

Participants showed an increased level of understanding of issues relating to mothers apart after attending the MAP Workshop. Out of a possible score of 80 (8 x items rated 0-10), participants scored their level of understanding as an average of 50 before the workshop and 70 after the workshop (see Table 6 for mean and standard deviation). A related t test was conducted and this revealed that workshop participants’ understanding of key issues pertaining to mothers apart (workshop objectives) was significantly higher after attending the workshop than it had been beforehand, t (20) = 7.25, p = 0.00.

Table 6. Mean and standard deviation for participants’ understanding

  Means Standard Deviation
Pre-workshop level of understanding 50.62 14.52
Post-workshop level of understanding 70.43 7.44

In addition, every workshop participant stated that they had a raised awareness of a) the situations of mothers apart (including needs and issues) and b) how to improve responses to mothers apart, which were the fundamental aims of the programme.

Qualitative data

Qualitative data comprised feedback provided through open-ended questions on a post-workshop questionnaire (n= 21) (submitted at the end of the workshop) and post-workshop written reflective exercises (n=19) (submitted up to one month after the workshop). Qualitative data has not yet been fully analysed but was reflected on and discussed at the MAP meeting. A preliminary analysis identifies some themes that are discussed here in an initial, informal evaluation of the workshop.

The majority of feedback was positive about all aspects of the workshop with 13 out of the returned 21 post-questionnaires omitting to state a least effective element (thereby asserting no non-effective elements). Remaining participants reported the least effective elements of the workshop were associated with too much information in too little time and resources to complete some tasks, especially the policy and procedure exercise; and 2 participants stated a preference for a family/systemic approach. Germane to this point is that no participants commented on the systems thinking that underpins the investigation in which the workshop was embedded. Systems theory provides a socio-ecological model, which includes the family but goes beyond this level to include community and organisational levels and the values and beliefs of society and culture. Systems theory underpinned all aspects of the Intervention Mapping Approach to the Project and can be seen most obviously in the needs assessment research and the networking components of the workshop. The lack of acknowledgment of this aspect of the workshop is unclear but might indicate a failure to communicate this aspect of the project effectively, or maybe that this element was not prioritised in participants’ feedback.

The vast majority of participants found that listening and talking to mothers apart was the most effective element of the workshop. Participants also identified effective elements as: group discussions, reflective writing, questions and answers, dissemination of facilitator’s research, models/literature/resources made available, multiagency networking providing different perspectives, a needs-led, strengths-based approach, and a focus on women’s centres (one participant proposed a women-centred lead for a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)).

Participants reported key learning as: understanding long-term trauma for mothers apart; challenges that mothers face through a lack of services and interventions, and ignorance by professionals about non-physical aspects of domestic abuse such as coercive control and maternal alienation; recognising perpetrator invisibility and the need for accountability; understanding the variety of circumstances through which mothers can be separated from their children, but how similar the issues, problems and needs were despite differences in situations such as class and or cultural identity; the need for empathic understanding, listening and believing, not judging and valuing the mothering role; the importance of multi-agency working and networking; mother protection as child protection; and how maternal alienation could happen to anyone – “made vulnerable at the hands of just anyone or any life event really” (P5). One participant noted, “how marginalised and isolated from society they (mothers apart) are once you no longer care for your children” (P20) and the value of peer support and the “need to come together in a safe environment where they (mothers apart) will not be judged” (P20). Another participant was reminded of the importance of how achieving “unconditional positive regard for clients”…. “is critical to achieving good practice”….”within social work, where making professional judgements can sometimes appear to be incompatible with empathy” (P7).

The majority of reflections from participants affirmed the key message of the workshop of the need to support mothers apart – both when they are at risk of becoming separated from a child and when they have become separated. One participant provided the following reflection that is a crucial message of the MAP Workshop: “no matter the reason a parent is apart from their child, the pain or loss they feel is no less easier to deal with” (P11). Practitioners from differing backgrounds recognised these needs more specifically as: help in understanding their situations and options, being empowered to take appropriate action of which they are in control, for counselling or 1:1 intervention, and understanding when they are experiencing DV.

One participant noticed how mothers apart on the workshop “did not refer to themselves as survivors of DV or to their ex-partners as perpetrators” (P13). It is common that mothers apart do not realise that maternal alienation is domestic abuse and this has been a point of discussion in the MAP planning group over the course of the workshop development. When reflecting on the workshop one member of the group (and volunteer on the workshop) explained this was the desire not to be seen as a victim – but it is possible to replace the victim narrative with one of survival.

Participants generally reflected a desire for professionals to work towards keeping mothers and children together rather than compromising mother-child relationships through misplaced professional intervention. Several participants suggested that awareness of alienating tactics be part of safeguarding and that the MAP Workshop “should be used as a component of local authority training for professionals in social care services” (P21). Participants suggested that workers challenge court/institutional decisions more and question decisions that lead to mothers living apart from their children so that the normativity/acceptance of mother-child separations is challenged, especially when decisions “maybe wrong or unjust…as these decisions can be very dangerous” (P3). One participant reported how she had “not really considered the aftermath of the decisions to remove children and the impact this later has on individuals,” (P16) suggesting that the workshop helped in such consideration.

One participant reported how using the CAADA-DASH RIC with mothers apart in mind will lead her to probe further, e.g. when asking about threats to kill, a probe to “explore fully around both mum and children” (P6) could lead to more information that might detect maternal alienation. Participants reported intentions to: defend and advocate for mothers, contact other support services and liaise with other agencies, and develop this area of work locally. One participant reported how the workshop had already influenced her practice in a meaningful way when she (the participant) met with a client and “spoke about the workshop and she (her client) was very interested in the experiences of other mothers (i.e. shame, guilt and profound loss). The session opened up other opportunities to explore her (client’s) particular situation and she became more motivated to ensure that she has access to her children” (P17). The importance of advocacy in times of trauma and confusion was recognised, for example: “they (mothers apart) are so vulnerable and grief stricken that it should be their right to have an independent advocate to support them”(P1). It was suggested that multi-agency working was the best way to avoid contributing to unnecessary mother-child separations but some doubts were expressed about: a) the options for working with other agencies in their current work situations and, b) the practicality of networking if the only option for this was outside of working hours.

One theme in the feedback and reflections concerning child protection matters in a context of maternal alienation as a form of violence against women and children suggested a lack of understanding amongst some participants. For example, 1 participant stated that the influence of the workshop on practice would be limited because, “work typically involves a child being removed from a mother due to child protections concerns and not where there is maternal alienation” (P19). Strategies by abusive men who target the mother-child relationship can lead to child protection concerns when perpetrators make false allegations, e.g. of substance misuse, mental health, ‘unfit mother’, etc. Therefore, child protection concerns founded on untrue accusations against a mother can directly lead to maternal alienation, especially when social workers recommend the care of a child be transferred from the mother to the father. In these ways, professionals can unwittingly collude in maternal alienation or can knowingly contribute to mother-child separations when abusive men threaten them. This was explained on the workshop but a misunderstanding by more than one participant suggests a failure to convey how the exploitation of systems and manipulation of professionals are key strategies of perpetrators of maternal alienation. Alternatively, some practitioners may have understood what I was explaining but rejected the idea.

It was evident that many practitioners had in-depth experience and knowledge of how mothers lose their children to perpetrators in these ways, especially those working in the field of DV who might have understood MA prior to the workshop. For those workshop attendees who were hearing about MA for the first time, there was evidence that participants either embraced or rejected the concept along with the theories and philosophies on which it was based. This is to be expected both because the concept of MA is grounded in feminist standpoint theory and because the present study takes a cultural feminist position, which values motherhood. Feedback and reflections showed that participants either valued or rejected feminist ideas. Therefore, there was likely to be anti-feminist backlash. It is also possible that the critique presented during the workshop of systems and professional practice might have been taken personally by some participants, which subsequently created an emotive state that became a barrier to learning. Perhaps the critique was simply rejected out of hostility towards feminist ideas. The critique, however, was crucial to the understanding of MA and systemic alienation – which involves exploitation of institutions and manipulation of professionals – and clearly essential to explore how professionals can improve their responses when it is necessary to know first how responses are deficient.

On this note, then, some anomalous feedback (3 out of 21), which continued in the reflections, arose from participants’ disagreement with some of the central tenets of the workshop, or judging the workshop content and/or facilitation negatively. A further analysis of this feedback revealed these participants were, a) unhappy that the workshop focussed entirely on mothers apart and did not include issues relating to fathers apart or male victims of domestic violence, b) believed the facilitator to be biased against men and also against children’s services/social workers and, c) fundamentally disagreed with the notion of mother protection as child protection (as espoused by Professor Liz Kelly (1996)). Incidentally, 2 participants reported experiencing a negative attitude from another workshop participant although it is not clear whether this was the same participant or not. One participant’s reflection included comments about workers who “do not get it” (P12). These anomalies, then, were most likely due to participants’ own values/attitudes/beliefs/bias that led to a rejection of the key ideas presented in the workshop and/or created a barrier to learning. Data relating to these variances are the outliers in the analysis that support previous evidence and theory, which identifies these areas for change in order to improve professionals’ responses to mothers apart.

A wide range of comments were made about the delivery and facilitation, which ranged from the (mostly) very encouraging and enthusiastic to the critical. The disparity in the comments illustrates the apparently polarised values/attitudes/beliefs of workshop participants. These in turn, reflect the differing views of professionals in the services and institutions that mothers apart generally engage with. The contradictory approaches to women and children’s safety in the field of DV and CA support a wealth of research that evidences long-standing differences between organisations based on feminist theory, research and practice (e.g. DV services) and anti-feminist organisations (e.g. men’s rights activists and fathers rights groups), and between workers in the field of domestic violence and workers in social services. These are well-documented issues in the literature pertaining to DV and CA and were discussed in Anne Morris’s own research into MA.

One example of these conflicts, revealed in the feedback/reflections, is well illustrated by the component of the MAP Workshop concerning listening and talking to the mothers apart, which the majority of participants identified as the most effective element. Some participants stated that training which involves talking to survivors and listening to the voices of women most effectively raises awareness of DV but some (a lesser number) participants thought this introduced a problem of only hearing one side of an argument. This suggests that participants did not take volunteers stories at face value and alludes to the problem of professionals disbelieving what survivors say. One participant even suggested that the children of the volunteers might have chosen to live with their fathers despite their situations, which completely misses the point. Of course, some children choose to live with their fathers and this is not problematized when fathers are non-abusive. What is being highlighted here is the problem of children rejecting protective mothers with whom they have had close, loving relationships in favour of living with fathers who have been abusive to their mothers and/or them. This happens when abusive men target the mother-child relationship post-separation and manipulate children, family, friends and professionals (e.g. using false allegations) and exploit the system (e.g. grooming children to reject their mother so that they say they don’t want to see her – especially effective when professionals prioritise the ‘wishes and feelings’ of children).

The problem of professionals not believing survivors in such situations is disastrous for mothers and children surviving DV and CA when it contributes to MA. This situation is antithetical to the feminist position of believing survivors and illustrates the problem facing mothers apart who are often obliged to engage with institutions/organisations that are not feminist or are anti-feminist. DV services in the UK are feminist because take the standpoint of believing women and not blaming them for their abuse unlike the other institutions/organisations that they must engage with, which blame women for their abuse and pathologise them as being emotionally abusive to children (failing to protect), or do not believe them and, again, pathologise them as being emotionally abusive to children when they interpret their stories as false allegations against a father (frustrating contact). Again, this is well documented in the literature and very well illustrated by Marianne Hester’s (2011) ‘Three Planet Model’.

One of the drive home messages of the MAP Workshop is that once women are in a relationship where is DV or CA, they are at risk of becoming separated from their children when they are disbelieved, blamed and/or labelled as emotionally abusive when they do not leave violent relationships or fail to promote contact with ex-partners once they have left the relationship. This can lead to the bizarre post-separation situation in the UK, where children are placed in the care of the violent partners of women who have been labelled ‘emotionally abusive’ and consequently regarded as not ‘good enough’ mothers but where the abusive men are deemed ‘good enough’ fathers because they are no longer living with the woman who they have abused. In such situations both parents are seen as abusive towards children but fathers are given care of children when their abuse is targeted towards the mother and is viewed as stopping when the relationship ends. Mothers abuse is viewed as targeted at the child when she cannot protect her children from the abuse so care of children is denied to her if she cannot leave her partner. This way of thinking, then, ignores an analysis of violent men as fathers – despite a wealth of literature that links abuse towards women with abuse towards children – and ignores the value of the mother-child relationship as part of recovery from DV. See Dr Emma Katz’s research, for example, on this subject.

It is worth pointing out that a focus on mothers apart does not equate with a dismissal of issues faced by fathers separated from their children or misandry. Of course there are good and loving fathers struggling to have contact with their children in the UK as there are elsewhere in the world. The omission of matters relating to men as victims/survivors was partly due to extremely limited time in which to convey a large amount of information and simply due to the fact that the focus of the present study is on mothers not fathers. I made an apology for this omission during the workshop but this was given out of respect towards any participants that would have liked to hear more about the male viewpoint and not an admission of wrongdoing. Furthermore, because my research is focussed on women as mothers who are survivors of DV, my research is only concerned with abusive men and fathers. This does not, of course, mean that I am “anti-fathers” or “anti-men”, or biased against men – or that I am saying all men are abusive, which would be ridiculous. I have not studied men as fathers in general and do not feel qualified to impart information on this subject. I know that some good research exists into birth fathers, for example, but this is not my area of research.

Additionally, one participant suggested that male participation on the workshop would have been beneficial but this was not for want of trying. Although some men expressed interest in the training when it was advertised, no men signed up or attended. This may have given the impression of bias against men that was not intended and this may have further exacerbated the problems identified above.

In addition, 1 participant stated that the workshop took an anti-intervention approach despite the fact that one of the key messages of the workshop and my research project is the need for an intervention for mothers apart. However, this comment may have been referring to early intervention. In this respect, I am not anti-intervention but against the practice of removing children from mothers as a method of early intervention when there is DV and CA in favour of protecting and supporting mothers as a superior form of child protection.

Constructive feedback also provided useful suggestions for exploring DV/mother-child separations in same-sex relationships. Research data on this area that was not included – again, because there was not time for everything. In this vein, a distinct heterosexual perspective to violence against women and children was taken, which is the most widely recognised dynamic of domestic violence and is my area of study.

Ultimately, all comments were welcome because they illustrate the tensions between contradicting approaches to DV and CA as outlined above and support the research that identifies these conflicts. In this respect, data collected from the Workshop will add much to the final analysis and discussion sections of my dissertation. Additionally, the comments will certainly shape future workshops in which I will attend to these matters at the outset in the hope of lessening hostility to my research and to free up minds for greater learning development opportunities.

Qualitative data affirmed the need for training for professionals. There was undoubtedly too little time in this workshop for the amount of information that was imparted. This was mainly because the delivery was guided by interviews with professionals who advocated for an interactive workshop with plenty of group activity. This was provided but at the expense of being able to explain the many elements in any depth. All the feedback and reflections were useful and I am extremely grateful for participants’ attendance at the workshop and for the feedback and reflections.

I think that in future workshops I might spend more time encouraging self-awareness and thinking about values/beliefs/attitudes/bias, etc. Although these ideas were introduced on the workshop we didn’t spend long on this due to time constraints. In the field of DV and CA, however, I think it is tremendously important for practitioners to know what theory and philosophy underpins their practice. As a researcher-practitioner, I understand that different forms of feminism that I align myself with (i.e. radical and cultural) – are not entirely compatible with each other but underpin both my research and practice, and that feminism – which focuses on societal and cultural explanations of violence and abuse – also conflicts with my person-centred, humanistic training, which places the individual at the centre. I am aware of these tensions in my research and practice that can contribute to my standpoint. One of the many advantages of qualitative research in critical social psychology for me is in acknowledging the subjectivity that comes from our values, beliefs and attitudes. I realise these have been shaped by my life experiences and, in both my research and practice, I believe these put me at an advantage as an ‘insider’ rather than an ‘outsider’. I have spent over half a century in training to understand the dynamics of CA, DV and MA and I acknowledge that I bring subjectivity to my research because of this apprenticeship. It would not only likely be impossible for me to remain objective when I know things empirically but undesirable. I see such epistemology as a strength, however, and do not hold a pejorative view of my bias. Rather, I acknowledge my subjectivity and choose to include these ways of knowing in my research. I also try to respect the viewpoints of others who are also likely to be biased due to cultural and societal influences on their thinking and due to their life experiences.

Overall, the aims of the MAP Workshop were achieved in any event. This is evidenced by the objective, quantitative data described at the start of this report. More subjectively, qualitative data confirmed this and the many encouraging comments affirmed the overarching aim of the Project to raise awareness of mothers apart and the lack of help and support for them in the UK. We particularly enjoyed comments such as this one, which was music to the ears of mothers apart in the MAP planning group.

“The workshop identified how sparse support for mothers apart is and that there is a real need to support these mothers. I feel empowered to support women on this journey in the future due to the workshop and I look forward to this project developing and further influencing my practice. The workshop allowed me to reflect on how mother-blaming the child protection process can be. I feel empowered to continue to support mothers to be empowered to go through the system and have good outcomes for their children. Thank you for the workshop and introducing me to such inspiring, brave, strong women” (P4).

Overwhelmingly kind and thankful comments were made about the (free!) learning development day, and these were much appreciated.

Naturally, many thanks went to the mothers apart volunteers. One participant said “thank you to all the mothers apart in attendance for sharing your wonderful work, research and life stories with us all. You are all amazing” (P12) and another was “amazed by the courage, strength and resilience shown by the mums and how they never gave up hope of being reunited with their children” (P9).

(N.B. Some of us are still alienated from children but we all continue to hope for good relationships in the future because we know the importance of our mothering in our children’s lives no matter how old they become. Our special ways of knowing as mothers motivates us to educate professionals about the importance of trying to keep mothers and children together wherever possible for the sake of healthy childhoods and adult lives).

Thanks also were given by participants for the delicious food provided by the volunteers, and for the quality of the venue at Coventry University.

I echo this gratitude and say a massive thank you to the MAP planning group members and mothers apart, workshop participants, research participants who provided data that informed the workshop, my clinical and research supervisors, and Coventry University for the venue/facilities.

Posted in MAP Workshop | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment