Research shows that people with mental health illnesses are more likely to be the victims of violence than the general population. (Graham Thornicroft – Shunned). One study showed that people with mental illness were two and a half times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the general population (8.2% compared to 3.1%). There are many, many studies trying to determine which category of people are most likely to be violent and these studies vary in their conclusions. The role of alcohol or drug use appears to be a stronger predictor for violence than does having a diagnosis of a severe mental illness. As Prof Thornicroft points out, there aren’t studies of the prevalence of violence amonst “the physically ill”….

However, there are many studies which point to the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated against the mentally ill. Some might say that living with a person with a mental health problem “causes” them to become angry/frustrated/fed up with the sufferer and that they are “pushed” into becoming violent towards them or that they are “defending” themselves against the mentally ill person’s “attack” (verbal or physical). The huge problem with domestic violence is seeing through the issue of “who started it” much like a parent has to see through which child hit the other first or which child started the argument. What is obvious, however, (and supported by a lot of research) is that many sufferers of depression and anxiety have such low self esteem that it is very easy for them to become victims of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, ill-treatment etc as they find it very difficult to stand up for themselves or to believe in themselves sufficiently well to be assertive with those around them. People with mental ill health are often told that they have “lost their reason or judgement” and they therefore doubt themselves when their spouse is telling them that they are wrong/stupid/unreasonable/selfish/uncaring/lazy/irresponsible etc etc. They lack the certainty that their own perceptions and judgements are correct as they are constantly reminded that they are “ill”. This makes it very easy for an abuser to get to the core of their victim and succesfully abuse them, hold power over them and undermine them to the point of cruelty. The “mind games” that a spouse can play over their mentally ill partner can be devastating. 

This has been my own experience. My ex husband played with my mind in exactly this manner. I now see this and can compare it directly with my experience with my partner of the last 3 years. My partner plays none of these games, nor does he try and control, manipulate, bully or abuse me in any way. I am fortunate enough to have formed such a close bond with another person to enable me to make these comparisons.

Researching the link between mental ill health and domestic violence has been hugely helpful to me in making my recovery. I can distinguish between those behaviours of mine which were destructive and those behaviours which resulted from being abused by my ex husband. Reading the profiles of an abuser helps to recognise a pattern of behaviour or dynamic in a domestic violence relationship. As a result, a person can disentangle those behaviours which are attributable to their own personality and those which resulted from being abused.

One such piece of research is an article from Mr Lundy Bancroft. This article rings so true for me as it is so close to the truth of my own experience. I have highlighted in bold those sentences which are exactly like my ex spouses behaviour.  Read the entire article by clicking on the following link or by visiting the Justice for Mothers website:

Here is an except from Mr. Bancroft’s article:

An abuser’s desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping way from him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate “fear of abandonment.”) He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim, including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping. Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.

 

The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with “his” children; this theme is a common one in batterer groups. (Marie: My ex took out a Prohibited Steps Order against my new partner claiming that he was a danger to my children simply becuase he suffered from Bipolar too). He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations that the new partner is abusing the children, (Marie: there were numerous threatening letters sent to my new partner accusing him of all kinds of behaviour), cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in order to protect his sole province over his children.

A batterer who does file for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), (Marie: my ex spent earns over £450k pa but maintains that he cannot afford to pay maintenance to me). 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator.

There is also evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer’s advantage. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim’s perspective, and can lead to financial ruin for her and her children.

I am still living in my brother’s spare room, 18 months after being ordered to leave the matrimonial home whilst he remains in our 7 bedroomed house. This means that the children’s home with me is still my brother’s spare room where we all share a bed. I have no car of my own ( I have to borrow my boyfriend’s) whilst he has just bought a new BMW people carrier. I have been awarded 12% of his income whilst he keeps the rest. I am over £450k in debt.

Would this happen if I were not “mentally ill”? If I had been strong enough to stand up for myself, and/or didn’t have a set of medical records and a condition that would be used against me in court, would I be in the situation I’m in? I don’t think so. Many of my readers have given similar accounts of how they have been abused by their spouses due to their own lack of self esteem arising from their mental health problems. There are many articles, comments, forum chats where people have said the same thing ie that they have been abused by their partners because they have suffered from a mental health problem which their spouse has used against them to take control, intimidate, manipulate and ultimately punish by taking their children away from them.

Any similar stories out there? Anyone who disagrees with this perception/research? As usual, any feedback gratefully received….

Wow! Did I hear my children burst with their feelings tonight! They started by saying that they didn’t want to leave me after our weekend together. Once again, they talked about how unhappy they are about not seeing more of me. They started to talk about how they felt about the Judge and her decision to “take away their mum from them.” They were angry and resentful about their situation and were clear that neither the Judge nor CAFCASS had considered them or their feelings at all. So they expressed their feelings like this:

My youngest daughter thought that the Judge should be sent to hell where she would make the Judge sit in a bath full of spiders…clearly, for her, that was the most appalling punishment that she could think of. For her, the thought that someone she hated would be subjected to what they might fear most, surrounded by what they feared most and in a place (hell) where they would have to stay forever being surrounded by what they feared most was the maximum punishment she could inflict.  Mmmmm…….that’s anger for you.

My eldest child started by asking whether she is now old enough to be sent to jail.  I could see that she was grinning mischievously so played along with her. I told her that, under UK law, a child of 10 was considered legally capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and could therefore be found guilty of a crime. She then asked whether, if she was sent to jail, she would be sent to jail with all the adults so I explained that children are sent to a young offenders prison, not with the adults. I asked her why she wanted to know.  She said because she has been wanting to go into the Court and thump the judge really, really hard whilst shouting at the same time “How would you feel if your children were taken away from you! You’re not the one who’s suffering! We are! How would your children feel if they only saw their mum every other weekend! You should have come to our home and see how we are suffering without our mum. You’re not the one having to cope with it all, we are! “

She said that she is very angry still with what has happened. She said that the Judge didn’t come to their home to see how they lived and what their home was like, that the judge didn’t meet them or talk to them or even ask them how they felt about their mum or their dad or what living arrangements they would like. They were just ignored and nobody came to talk to them. She said that she hated CAFCASS too: “They should have a young person to talk to us, someone who understands us, not an old person who can’t listen properly! The person should understand how a child thinks about things.”

My son also described, in graphic detail, all the things that he would like to do to the Judge too; these were all about physically hurting the Judge: thumping, throwing things at her, hurting her REALLY BADLY. He also wanted to shout at her, telling her how angry he was about having him mum taken away from him.

They asked whether they would get into trouble if they did this. I said that yes, what they wanted to do was known in criminal law as “assault” and was a crime which people can be put into prison for. I explained that “assault” was a crime in which a person hurts someone else physically, emotionally or psychologically. I stressed that no-one should ever hurt anyone else unless it was self defense if someone was attacking them. They then wanted to know if brothers and sisters were put into jail when they hurt in each in their fights. I said that yes, when they were older, then if they hurt each other badly, they could be found guilty of assault. Their logic continued: “But all brothers and sisters hurt each other, mummy. They all fight each other when they’re angry with each other; they thump and kick each other. It’s normal so why is it a crime?” I had to explain that, one of the jobs of a parent is to teach children not to hurt each other either physically, emotionally or psychologically. It is a crime because no person should hurt another person EVER even if they are in the same family. They then said: ” but if we are angry with each other, or we get hit, then we hit back. What the Judge has done to us is to hurt us, so why can’t we thump or kick her back? She has really hurt us and now she’s just gone back to her own house and left us hurt.”

I was very struck by the intensity of their anger and the way in which children could think of the most appropriate punishment for someone who they feel has ruined their lives. They have often expressed how angry they are with the Judge and CAFCASS, repeatedly saying how much they want to hurt these people as retribution for hurting them so much by taking away their mum. It is that simple to them: they are hurting, so they want to hurt the people who, in their eyes, have hurt them so much.

I am a religious person and also a pragmatic person. I teach them about the bible and that God wouldn’t want us to hurt each other; that he loves us all, that we are all his children (even the Judge and CAFCASS) and that therefore he doesn’t want us hurting each other. He teaches us to be kind to each other and to love each other. It is wrong to go around hurting people and I stress that “hurt” includes emotional and psychological hurt too. I also teach them about what the law says and that we cannot behave in any way we want to as we all need to learn to live alongside each other.

The quote that I repeat to them is “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Ghandi).

The question they are raising is fundamental: “Who is hurting who?” Who is hurting (emotionally and psychologically) who? If hurting another is a crime and is against the teaching of a Christian society, how do the children understand that, despite the fact that they are being fundamentally hurt, the law states that it is acceptable. I had to explain that there are different areas of law: one law states that it is a crime to hurt another, but another law states that it is not a crime to hurt a child because the law states that “it is acting in the best interests of the child”. The law that governs the decisions about who they should live with tells the Judge what to do and the Judge is following what the law states. The law states that the Judge can overrule a child’s feelings if the Judge deems that the child is better looked after by one person than another even if that is not what the child wants. The fact that they are hurt badly by this decision, does not make it against the law. The crime of “assault” is not applicable here as another law has taken its place.  The children found this, not surprisingly, hard to understand.

I had to explain that, sometimes, the rules that we live by are not always straightforward and, sometimes those rules don’t always make sense because they are so complicated and different rules apply in different situations. The adults make these rules because they understand the different situations. This idea is very hard for them to understand; their view of life is very simple.

The talk from some of the visitors to my site, is that I am the one who is ruining my children’s lives and yet my children’s view is that it is the Judge and CAFCASS who have ruined their lives, not me. You might say that my children wouldn’t want to tell me that they think I am responsible in order to save my feelings; although there may be times when this could be the case, I know my children very well. They are typically brutally honest with me and have no trouble at all telling me when they think I have done something wrong, or hurtful, or careless or not thinking about their feelings. We have a very open communication system and I actively encourage them to tell me openly, honestly and frankly what they are thinking and feeling. I tell them that, unless we know what each other thinks and feels, we cannot make things right for each other. I repeatedly stress that sometimes we are not aware of how we might be upsetting someone and that we are not mind readers so the only way we can understand how each other is feeling is to tell each other. I also tell each of them to “hear each other out” so that we can all tell each other our own side of any situation without leaping to conclusions and judgements and to take it in turns to speak and to listen.

I told them that the Judge made her decision based on only what she heard and that she didn’t hear everything that she needed to hear. I told them that I agreed with them that, the most important people to hear from was the children, yet she didn’t hear them. (I explained that it was CAFCASS’s job to hear the children and then relay that to the Judge). I then told them that she didn’t hear from anyone in my family, or any of my friends and that, if she had, she would have heard “the other side of the story”. Because she didn’t hear both sides properly, she made the decision without hearing all the things that the children would have said.

My eldest daughter then went on to say what she wanted to happen; she said that she thought that a fairer arrangement was to live one week with me, followed by one week with Daddy, one week with mummy etc. They all thought that this would be a good solution, my other daughter saying 50:50…. I told them that mummy and daddy can choose to agree on whatever arrangement we want and voluntarily put aside the current court order if we wish to. The issue is that we would both have to agree on a workable alternative. I would be prepared to try another arrangement if that is the arrangement that the children would prefer. The challenge, of course, is getting my ex to listen to what the children want and putting his own feelings/wishes to one side to enable him to listen with an open mind…