Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[8ball]

Yes, there is. In other societies - the Vikings, for instance - a form of 'post-natal abortion' has been carried out where it is judged that the new baby cannot be cared for. We wouldn't accept that in our society, and quite rightly, but at the same time I can understand why it has been done in other societies. Moral absolutes rarely work.

Yeah, there are lots of cases like this (not so much in terms of infanticide but in terms of emotional bonds on a personal level between the baby and their extended family not being cemented until well after birth). Hence some peoples having 'naming ceremonies' where a baby is welcomed to the tribe at about a year of age. A human baby can be likened to an external foetus for the first year of life in terms of its capabilities when compared to other mammals.
There are things going on in its mind in that first year (and before birth) that are incredibly complex and uniquely human, though, which makes the judgments tougher still.

Elements on both sides try to paint these as simple questions with simple answers. I think they often just cause the opposing side to become further entrenched when they do this.

 

[captainmission]

Although I'd agree a successful outcome in this case is troubling in terms of women's reproductive rights and reliant on moralist assumptions about pregnant women and addiction on the first to points i think you're wrong.

firstly, yes, there is a child who needs care. but this case is not about whether care should be provided for that child. it is about who pays for that care. does anyone really believe that the child won't be cared for, or that there will be significant differences in the care they receive dependent on the outcome of that case?

The tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds the child could receive in compensation will likely receive better quality of care. The local authority doesn't just get this money and use it to pay for the care it has a statutory care it has to provide. The money will be placed in trust to provide for additional care needs of the child. Some of the services or equipment it purchases will replace basic care provided by the local authority or local health authority - they will make savings and have a financial interest in the out come of this case. But that doesn't mean the child doesn't receive better quality care- in the same way any disabled who receives state support would be aided by having a large compensation payment.

Even in cases where areas where disabled people are required to make contributions to social care based on income or capital, compensation made for personal injury are exempt.

I'd quite like it if the best quality care was provided to all disabled people but that currently isn't the case.

if you want to look at why this case is necessary, then consider that it is absolutely bloody rediculous that one organisation is using taxpayer funds to take another organisation to court, who are using taxpayer funds to try to aviod paying taxpayer funds to another taxpayer funded organisation. fuck, i normally loathe the 'taxpayer' card, but this lot of shites are wasting money bickering over whose budget this child's care comes out of, when they are both funded from the same source.

Would you make the same claim if the local authority was making a claim for medical negligence or police brutality on behalf of a child in their care? I spent the last 5 years working for a charity that received the majority of its funding from the state and spent most of its time legally challanging decisions of the state. It'd be nice not to do this, but that would require the state to always make the right decision. It's also ignoring both CICA and the local authority receive finite funding.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Doesn't solve what you want it to solve, though, because the woman carrying the foetus is also a person. Where does the balance between what may be conflicting rights between the two come? You still need to decide that. EG: you may have to kill the foetus to save the mother's life. There is no equivalent moral dilemma elsewhere, except perhaps with conjoined twins.

Even if you extended the concept of rights to a foetus, a strong bias towards the rights of the person who is already a fully conscious and autonomous individual is surely right here if there is a conflict. And if there is no conflict, then the rights of the foetus will be identical to the rights of the woman on whom its development depends.

From what I can tell, rights of the foetus arguments are generally made by people who wish to prioritise its welfare over that of the woman wherever there may be conflict between the two. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the woman should retain autonomy over her body when she is pregnant to safeguard against that.

You mention dogs. Well if you're looking at this from a developed conscious awareness perspective, a dog is more aware than a foetus. Add to that the fact that the foetus is not yet capable of independent survival, while the dog is, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a dog should have more legal protection than a foetus. Seems to me that you need to add in religious arguments about a unique human soul to get around that, in which case you are now in territory where anti-abortionists roam.

It is a very very difficult area. There are two people involved, and to try and balance the 'rights' of one over the other is almost impossible.

As I said earlier, in the same hospital at the same time, you may have one group of staff ending the life of a 24 week old foetus, and another group striving to maintain the life of a 24 week old premature baby.

I do think that legal abortion is necessary. Making abortion illegal would simply see a return to the previous 'backstreet butchery' which existed before the enactment of the current law, which would not be a good outcome for anyone.

The case at the root of this thread may end up having unforeseen consequences. The situation is, that what is being sought is effectively a legal ruling that the conduct of the mother caused irreparable damage to a child, and as a consequence, the child is entitled to financial support to enable as good a life as possible. Fair enough. However, I find it difficult to find that the mother's conduct has damaged the child, and a sum of money be paid, without a finding of criminality against the mother. It seems that a progression is being sought from step 1, the damage, to step 3, the award, whilst missing out step 2, criminal proceedings to establish guilt. Because of that, I have a strong suspicion that the court will find against, and an award will not be made. To do otherwise opens a colossal can of worms, and would lead to a deluge of similar cases.

Should women be prosecuted because their behaviour during pregnancy has damaged their child? I don't know. Were such legislation to be introduced, I cannot see how the matter of guilt can be proved. It is inconceivable that a woman, having chosen to carry a child to term, would wish to deliberately harm the child.

It is clear that in this particular case, the support that should have been extended to the mother was not in place, had it been, then the case may never have happened.

I do think that there is scope to widen the area of protection of the foetus, whilst still retaining the availability of abortion. I'm not suggesting that protection of the foetus should be used as a 'back door' to abolish the existing abortion law. As I have stated many times before, I do not like abortion, but, am not agin the woman's right to choose.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fair play, sas. That's a perfectly reasonable position.

 

[toggle]

This really is the crux of the matter. I believe there is a mechanism whereby via an online petition, matters can be be debated in parliament. This would seem to be a very worthy matter for such a petition, in order that the living being being known as a foetus is extended the protection given to other living beings. At present, a dog has more legal protection than a foetus.

Having re-read this thread, I must say that views expressed, which pretty much equate the discarding of an empty crisp packet with the discarding of a human life, shocks and saddens me. It is a rejection of basic morality and humanity.

it saddens me a great deal more that it could possibly be considered the right and moral course of action to limit the bodily autonomy and legal protection given to women.

this is a basic rejection of morality and humanity.

and it has been proven so.

 

[toggle]

I do think that there is scope to widen the area of protection of the foetus, whilst still retaining the availability of abortion. I'm not suggesting that protection of the foetus should be used as a 'back door' to abolish the existing abortion law. As I have stated many times before, I do not like abortion, but, am not agin the woman's right to choose.

even if this kind of legislation isn't used to attack a woman's right to choose, there are dozens of other ways in which women are attacked. the crack baby scares in the US, encompassing attacks on women who sought drug treatment while pregnant, encompassing attacks on women whose behavior, while 'morally suspect' was according to medical research, not a cause of harm to a foetus. you have cases where denial of treatment by lawmakers was a demonstrable cause of harm to the foetus.including cases where women have succeeded in stopping drug use on their own and have been imprisioned or committed to a mental health treatment facility to enforce unnecessary drug addiction treatment on them. where ante natal care was not provided

this is an open door to allow micromanagement of women's lives and medical decisions. no woman who is awake and not deemed legally incompetent should have her right to choose to consent to medical treatment taken away from her.

these are all the back doors you are opening. the doorways to a great deal more harm than what you are trying to prevent.

 

[toggle]

well, I did my best to explain my point of view, you're obviously not in agreement and nor, by the looks of things is anyone else. In the light of Lewis's latest post I'm clearly not going to get anywhere except into arguments I don't want. So I'll leave it there.

you don't want to have those arguments...

that will be the stuff in my posts you're not quoting then? the bits about the effects of limiting the rights of women?

Which specific medical condition - the one the child is now suffering from, or the one the mother is likely to have been suffering from during her pregnancy?

Or is only one of those important here?

that's it I think. he dosen't want to discuss other cases because he dosen't think there's enough of an emotive arguement in them. isn't it women who are supposed to be all over emotional and unable to form a rational argument where children are concerned?

 

[andysays]

...The case at the root of this thread may end up having unforeseen consequences. The situation is, that what is being sought is effectively a legal ruling that the conduct of the mother caused irreparable damage to a child, and as a consequence, the child is entitled to financial support to enable as good a life as possible. Fair enough. However, I find it difficult to find that the mother's conduct has damaged the child, and a sum of money be paid, without a finding of criminality against the mother. It seems that a progression is being sought from step 1, the damage, to step 3, the award, whilst missing out step 2, criminal proceedings to establish guilt. Because of that, I have a strong suspicion that the court will find against, and an award will not be made. To do otherwise opens a colossal can of worms, and would lead to a deluge of similar cases...

It might be worth pointing out that for the purposes of a CICB award, it's not normally necessary to establish the criminal guilt of a particular individual.

A few years ago, I was assaulted in the street and my jaw was broken. No one was ever charged with assault (in fact I don't think the police bothered to do anything other than take a statement while I was sitting in an ambulance waiting to be taken to hospital), but I was eventually awarded compensation for the injuries I'd suffered through a criminal act, even though the criminal was never identified.

This case is totally different, in that it's seeking to define the actions of this woman as equivalent to criminal, even though they are clearly not actually criminal, and even though there is/was no legal victim on whom they were carried out when they were carried out.

I suggest that this would/could have implications beyond those for pregnant women, though it's worth resisting for those implications alone.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it saddens me a great deal more that it could possibly be considered the right and moral course of action to limit the bodily autonomy and legal protection given to women.

this is a basic rejection of morality and humanity.

and it has been proven so.

I think it's fair enough to feel conflicted, though, in the way sas went on to explain. I might have this wrong, but I don't think he's claiming to have all the answers here.

 

[toggle]

I think it's fair enough to feel conflicted, though, in the way sas went on to explain. I might have this wrong, but I don't think he's claiming to have all the answers here.

if you consider my statement to be unfair in some manner, then why don't you have a look at what it was in response to. all i've done is present the other consequences of his own position using his own rhetoric

 

[smmudge]

I haven't read the whole thread and skimmed quite a bit as well so maybe it's been covered but I find it a bit frustrating that what doesn't seem to be in question here is the worth (that is, the seemingly lack of) of people with disabilities. Underneath this debate of rights of a foetus vs autonomy of a woman and her body, seems to be the unchallenged assumption that having an impairment is always and necessarily inherently bad, rather than something that comes about because of prejudice and marginalisation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if you consider my statement to be unfair in some manner, then why don't you have a look at what it was in response to. all i've done is present the other consequences of his own position using his own rhetoric

Fair enough. He calmed down the rhetoric later. I totally agree with you on this, and I'm not conflicted tbh. I'm very clear what I think. Good, and necessary, to carry people like sas along, though. On this matter, at least, he's conflicted but he's not the enemy.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I haven't read the whole thread and skimmed quite a bit as well so maybe it's been covered but I find it a bit frustrating that what doesn't seem to be in question here is the worth (that is, the seemingly lack of) of people with disabilities. Underneath this debate of rights of a foetus vs autonomy of a woman and her body, seems to be the unchallenged assumption that having an impairment is always and necessarily inherently bad, rather than something that comes about because of prejudice and marginalisation.

This is a good point.

It's perhaps understandable that newbie wouldn't want to start talking about other cases of potential pre-birth harm when you've got the likes of Dawkins saying all Downs foetuses should be aborted for the sake of the terribly unhappy and awful life the person with Downs will have once they are born.

 

[toggle]

Fair enough. He calmed down the rhetoric later. I totally agree with you on this, and I'm not conflicted tbh. I'm very clear what I think. Good, and necessary, to carry people like sas along, though. On this matter, at least, he's conflicted but he's not the enemy.

he does though, have form for trying to use over emotional rhetoric and claims that no one who disagrees with him actually understands the words he was using. this included one occasion when he told me i didn't know what a late term abortion was and offered ti show me pictures, AFTER i'd told him I'd been offered an actual late term abortion and discussed it with a conultant.

even if he later states a position that is more moderate, I will challenge his attempts to insist that the debate be confined within the terms of his own personal morality. and his attempts to define those who disagree with him as immoral and ignorant

 

[toggle]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.

Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blog...ed-for-falling-down-the-stairs-while-pregnant

Life can't get much worse for Christine Taylor. Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.
That's when things got really bad and really crazy. Alone, distraught, and frightened, Taylor confided in the nurse treating her that she hadn't always been sure she'd wanted this baby, now that she was single and unemployed. She'd considered both adoption and abortion before ultimately deciding to keep the child. The nurse then summoned a doctor, who questioned her further about her thoughts on ending the pregnancy. Next thing Taylor knew, she was being arrested for attempted feticide. .

 

[newbie]

you don't want to have those arguments...

that will be the stuff in my posts you're not quoting then? the bits about the effects of limiting the rights of women?

that's it I think. he dosen't want to discuss other cases because he dosen't think there's enough of an emotive arguement in them. isn't it women who are supposed to be all over emotional and unable to form a rational argument where children are concerned?

[/QUOTE]
I really don't see it in those terms. I don't want to get drawn back into this, but the terms I view this in are those of an individual causing harm to someone else. If that's unduly emotive sobeit. But it's not got much to do with 'women' in the sense that the vast, vast majority do not behave like that. The behaviour that's in question is not gender specific, though the consequence of that behaviour is, and there's no way of getting around that.

However I have been told that the views I've put forward are 'an attack on women' and have led to 'really dangerous place'. So I've withdrawn since that's not my intention and I have no wish to post stuff that other people see in those terms.

 

[renegadechicken]

Having been involved in numerous cica claims on behalf of children, could i make it clear that any payments made are NOT to the local authority they are 1) either held in trust for the child until the child is an adult or 2) used for long term care for the child administered by their main carers (parents/adopters), if the main carer is the Local Authority, then an independent trust fund. The Local Authority have no access to the cica funds as they are expected to provide any care needs required under the children act 89 and/or adoption and children act 2012.

This issue is establishing whether the unborn child had rights...which currently under uk law it does not - a similar thing occurred in America a few years back ( maybe 14-15) where, due to the amount of 'crack addicted babies' being born, they would wait until the baby was born to an addict ( and still actively using ), and before the umbilical cord was cut, arrest the mother for 'administering toxic substances to a minor' - this was a pilot and predominately used on black women in the 'projects'. Thus in the eyes of American law gaining rights for the unborn child.

There are currently no laws in the UK that protect an unborn child. You can hold a pre birth child protection conference, and possibly a pre-proceedings legal meeting (referred to as PLO meeting) with parents and their solicitors - but other than that there is no way to protect unborn babies.

Interesting article here from 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419718/

 

[littlebabyjesus]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges





http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blog...ed-for-falling-down-the-stairs-while-pregnant

Fuck. That is shocking. I did not know there were such laws in the US.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think it's fair enough to feel conflicted, though, in the way sas went on to explain. I might have this wrong, but I don't think he's claiming to have all the answers here.

No indeed, I'm not claiming to have any answers, let alone them all.

This is a troubling case, which as highlighted above, may have many repercussions, not all of which would be desirable.

As in many things in life, I'm bloody glad that it is not my decision to make.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

Oh man of course women shouldn't be prosecuted for having drug or drink habits when pregnant. If you do that then fuckin no ones gonna book in if they think they'll be found out, even less be honest and try and get support. That'll do down both mother and baby. No one using is gonna go 'shit I might get prosecuted for this I'm definately gonna stop'. It's all way too far gone if a pregnancy won't pull you up. Nah they'll just (rightly) avoid judgemental services.

 

[cesare]

well, I did my best to explain my point of view, you're obviously not in agreement and nor, by the looks of things is anyone else. In the light of Lewis's latest post I'm clearly not going to get anywhere except into arguments I don't want. So I'll leave it there.

I don't think that's fair. If you want to make such a contentious and policing argument surely you should be prepared to discuss the ramifications of it.

 

[toggle]

I really don't see it in those terms. I don't want to get drawn back into this, but the terms I view this in are those of an individual causing harm to someone else. If that's unduly emotive sobeit. But it's not got much to do with 'women' in the sense that the vast, vast majority do not behave like that. The behaviour that's in question is not gender specific, though the consequence of that behaviour is, and there's no way of getting around that.

However I have been told that the views I've put forward are 'an attack on women' and have led to 'really dangerous place'. So I've withdrawn since that's not my intention and I have no wish to post stuff that other people see in those terms.[/QUOTE]

there is no legal someone else. there cannot be a definition of a someone else without a lessening of a woman's rights to control her own body.

when men get pregnant, you can claim this isn't gender specific. until then, we can focus on the reality that the only people whose rights will be taken away from them are women. that society already has more condemnatory attitudes towards women than men who are deemed immoral. particularly women who transgress by being unwomanly in some way. particularly those deemed uncaring, unmotherly.

 

[renegadechicken]

Oh man of course women shouldn't be prosecuted for having drug or drink habits when pregnant. If you do that then fuckin no ones gonna book in if they think they'll be found out, even less be honest and try and get support. That'll do down both mother and baby. No one using is gonna go 'shit I might get prosecuted for this I'm definately gonna stop'. It's all way too far gone if a pregnancy won't pull you up. Nah they'll just (rightly) avoid judgemental services.

Having worked with a couple(pre and post birth) who both had 10 year plus habits - the parents assisted me with educating people unfamiliar with addictions, including the magistrates, for whom they now give talks to during magistrate training, the first being when raised with the mother, that being pregnant should have been the motivation to stop using, she replied, but the baby wasn't real, it's in my tummy, and I'm a junkie ( replace her term for addict and it works for alcohol etc), i need the gear. This is a mother, whose partner brought her gear to the hospital whilst she was in labour as no pain relief offered by the hospital worked.
Both were and probably are still are great people and they were unusual in the respect that they remained a couple and both got clean and the child returned to them. The mother in particular was excellent in describing her addiction and needs this placed upon her rather than doing as she was supposed to to keep the unborn baby 'safe' .
But as toggle says the means of keeping the unborn and born baby safe is all down to the mother - legislation states it is. In child protection all the responsability to keep a child safe from witnessing Domestic Abuse, being safe from sexual abuse is placed upon the mother, to the extent that this can be as abusive as their abusive partner.
Such as, which i have heard said " if you resume your relationship with Mr X, you are failing to protect and we will take legal action to protect your child" - translation 'do what we say or we are gonna take your child'. In domestic violence cases that is continuing the abuse that the women are/were subject to.

 

[toggle]

Fuck. That is shocking. I did not know there were such laws in the US.

in the first f those articles, there's a mention of the violence agains tthe unborn legislation that was billed as a way to criminalise murderers for 2 crimes, for killing a pregnant woman. in one state, one case like that has been brought. over 300 have been brought against the woman who was carrying the foetus.

 

[equationgirl]

i think she was drinking before the first pregnancy.

so sad for her

 

[toggle]

so sad for her

comparing the situation to the attitudes displayed in the grooming cases. its not hard to see a child and then young woman who was written off until she became a brood mare. who then faced condemnation from the people who failed to help her.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Having worked with a couple(pre and post birth) who both had 10 year plus habits - the parents assisted me with educating people unfamiliar with addictions, including the magistrates, for whom they now give talks to during magistrate training, the first being when raised with the mother, that being pregnant should have been the motivation to stop using, she replied, but the baby wasn't real, it's in my tummy, and I'm a junkie ( replace her term for addict and it works for alcohol etc), i need the gear. This is a mother, whose partner brought her gear to the hospital whilst she was in labour as no pain relief offered by the hospital worked.
Both were and probably are still are great people and they were unusual in the respect that they remained a couple and both got clean and the child returned to them. The mother in particular was excellent in describing her addiction and needs this placed upon her rather than doing as she was supposed to to keep the unborn baby 'safe' .
But as toggle says the means of keeping the unborn and born baby safe is all down to the mother - legislation states it is. In child protection all the responsability to keep a child safe from witnessing Domestic Abuse, being safe from sexual abuse is placed upon the mother, to the extent that this can be as abusive as their abusive partner.
Such as, which i have heard said " if you resume your relationship with Mr X, you are failing to protect and we will take legal action to protect your child" - translation 'do what we say or we are gonna take your child'. In domestic violence cases that is continuing the abuse that the women are/were subject to.

People can be capable of immense stupidity, not the least of which is thinking that a partner who has seriously physically abused them will never do it again. A member of the family on Mrs Sas's side had her jaw broken by her partner. He got six months in prison. When he came out, to the consternation of everyone, she took him back. The second assault (that he was prosecuted for) was so severe that he got four years. A policeman who was involved in both cases got 'words of advice' after she complained that he had asked her how fucking stupid she was.

There was a child in the household.

One wonders if after the first assault, she had been told 'Take him back and you lose custody of your child.', it might have altered her decision, and incidentally still have hearing in both ears. Whereas it may have influenced her decision, it would not have been just. Domestic violence has only been taken seriously by the justice system for a relatively short time, and placing the emphasis on the woman to be responsible for the action of another, rather shows that it is still not being taken seriously. It was our family member's house, so excluding her abusive partner would not have left her homeless; most women are not in the same situation. It is very easy to suggest that the woman should leave, and take the children.

Where to, exactly? The situation is multi-factorial. Where to go? There must be something wrong with me that makes him behave like that. What will my friend's think? (Often, visible signs of violence are the first indication that all is not well.) What will the neighbours think? Why am I such a bad wife? The abuse is never just physical, it is also psychological, and that takes far longer to heal.

Placing a woman in the position of being responsible for abuse perpetrated on her by another is compounding the abuse.

I do think that a woman who takes an abuser back, is being brave, hopeful and naive in equal measure. That said, it is ludicrous to effectively criminalise her for it.

 

[renegadechicken]

But Sass, it wouldn't have been after the first reported assaulted that she would have been told that - the right to family life, working co-cooperatively and in partnership with parents etc precludes any 'persuasive' discussions taking place after 1 reported assault, unless the severity resulted in immediate police action under their powers of protection, ie immediate removal of the child by the police or an Initial child protection conference being held within 15 days of the reported assault, usually its working with both parents to achieve change, unless that leaves the child at risk of harm, and the expectation is that the mother would work with us to prevent this in an open and honest way.

 

[andysays]

I really don't see it in those terms. I don't want to get drawn back into this, but the terms I view this in are those of an individual causing harm to someone else. If that's unduly emotive sobeit. But it's not got much to do with 'women' in the sense that the vast, vast majority do not behave like that. The behaviour that's in question is not gender specific, though the consequence of that behaviour is, and there's no way of getting around that.

However I have been told that the views I've put forward are 'an attack on women' and have led to 'really dangerous place'. So I've withdrawn since that's not my intention and I have no wish to post stuff that other people see in those terms.

Fair play to you for decide to alter your approach in response to how people have reacted to your views.

It seems reasonable to look at things in terms of one individual causing harm to someone else, but I'm sure you realise that there are many ways in which this can potentially happen, many of which are not currently criminal. Simply making them criminal will not actually do anything to prevent the harm which you wish to prevent; in many cases, it will potentially do real harm to the people who will be criminalised, and so will have the exact opposite effect to what you seek.

It's also worth remembering that many of those potentially criminalised will be those who are vulnerable or have already been harmed and for that reason find it difficult or impossible to modify their behaviour in the way which it's suggested would be best, even in cases where appropriate care and assistance is provided, which it so often isn't.

 

[andysays]

People can be capable of immense stupidity, not the least of which is thinking that a partner who has seriously physically abused them will never do it again. A member of the family on Mrs Sas's side had her jaw broken by her partner. He got six months in prison. When he came out, to the consternation of everyone, she took him back. The second assault (that he was prosecuted for) was so severe that he got four years. A policeman who was involved in both cases got 'words of advice' after she complained that he had asked her how fucking stupid she was.

There was a child in the household.

One wonders if after the first assault, she had been told 'Take him back and you lose custody of your child.', it might have altered her decision, and incidentally still have hearing in both ears. Whereas it may have influenced her decision, it would not have been just. Domestic violence has only been taken seriously by the justice system for a relatively short time, and placing the emphasis on the woman to be responsible for the action of another, rather shows that it is still not being taken seriously. It was our family member's house, so excluding her abusive partner would not have left her homeless; most women are not in the same situation. It is very easy to suggest that the woman should leave, and take the children.

Where to, exactly? The situation is multi-factorial. Where to go? There must be something wrong with me that makes him behave like that. What will my friend's think? (Often, visible signs of violence are the first indication that all is not well.) What will the neighbours think? Why am I such a bad wife? The abuse is never just physical, it is also psychological, and that takes far longer to heal.

Placing a woman in the position of being responsible for abuse perpetrated on her by another is compounding the abuse.

I do think that a woman who takes an abuser back, is being brave, hopeful and naive in equal measure. That said, it is ludicrous to effectively criminalise her for it.

I think that to reduce the reasons why an abused woman would take her partner back to stupidity is not only insulting to all women who have been in that situation, it's also utterly unhelpful in that it obscures what the real issues which might make that decision seem like the best one, and therefore help to perpetuate cycles of abuse in many cases.

I'm sure that's not your intention, either in the specific case you mention or more widely, so please have a think about how you might take a more helpful and constructive approach - listening to those women here who have specific insight might be a good place to start.