“An abusive parent has no right to be in the life of their child”.
“A narcissistic parent must be removed, with no access to their child”.
“Children do NOT need 2 parents to thrive”.
Here’s the dilemma – having a child spend time with an abusive parent causes them harm. No one is arguing that.
But removing a parent, even a harmful one, from the life of a child also leaves them with trauma.
How then does one find a plausible solution that supports the best interest of the child, within an impossible scenario?
I ask for a pause and ask the question: WHO are we really protecting and who are we really punishing by advocating and asking for eliminating access to their child?
There is enormous amounts of research that shows that children have attachments to BOTH parents.
The needs of attachment do not discern whether the attachment figure is capable of meeting their needs or not. Whether they are harmful or not.
I understand first hand, the damage the abusive parent has caused their partner during the relationship and continues to cause by the way of post separation abuse.
I understand the damage that they are causing their children by having 50/50 custody or unsupervised time with them.
I am not minimizing or undermining that in any way – because the harm they cause is immense.
But eliminating a parent from the life of a child ALSO causes immense, long-term harm and trauma.
By forcibly eliminating access to a parent, even a harmful parent, who are we really punishing??
I have to argue that despite our noble intentions of protecting our children, we are also causing harm.
We are punishing the child more than we will ever be “punishing” the harmful parent.
Because the harmful parent could actually care less about spending time with their child outside of the pain that they know it causes you – the other parent.
But for these children children – their pain is different.
They have already had their voice and choice taken away from them by virtue of the parenting style of the harmful parent, and by the legal and therapeutic systems that choose to not listen to them.
They are left helpless and hopeless with no power, control or agency over their own lives.
Knowing that providing the opportunity for choice and voice in essential for healthy growth and development, I ask you, are we, the protective parent due to our own anger, rage and sense of injustice not exacerbating that harm by taking the choice of seeing their other parent away from them?
I ask you again, WHO are we really punishing?
I say all this as a professional who works to advocate for the best interests of children.
What I recognize is that this is not a black and white issue.
What I am saying that these children deserve to spend time with their parent as they choose to.
SUPERVISED time, and time that is facilitated in a way that helps them have a relationship with their parent, if they choose to, but in a way that also minimizes the risk for further harm.
This is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each situation is unique and will require its own considerations. And absolutely, there are some situations in which eliminating the abusive parent IS hands down in the best interests of the children.
For most other situations, I do believe there is a way to find a balance in the middle. Not for the benefit of the other parent, but for and in the best interest of our children.
Lauren Eden said: “Sometimes we are just the collateral damage in someone else’s war with themselves”.
This war may not be with yourself – but justifiably against an abusive parent, against blatant injustice, and an incompetent legal system.
I just ask that we be aware and mindful of not letting the best interests of your children become collateral damage in that war.
I ask for a shift in focus – from the actions of the abusive parent to the needs of the child.
To work to find a solution that can truly be in the best interests of these children – so they don’t have to lose more than they already have.
Comments