Swingpirate Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I am having - it seems to me - a very fundamental disagreement with someone who is important to me, a disagreement that has lead to some trust issues, thereby affecting the relationship adversely. The topic for disagreement was a (not entirely) hypothetical scenario that came up during a discussion between us, namely the following: Person X breaks contact with his or her parents due to having suffered continual abuse in childhood. Would it ever make sense for X to allow his/her parents to grandparent X:s children, and if so, for what reason and under what circumstances? What do you think? In order not to have a minimum impact on any potential responses, I'll leave out the details of the discussion for now, as well as my own approach to this problem. Highly grateful for your wisdom!
Marcus Clarke Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 No, do not Person X's parents near their children! Why would one let their abusers near their children? Remember that the fact that someone is your biological creator does not give them automatic access to your children. If your parent raped someone, would you let them near your children? No. If your parent abused you, would you let them near your children? No. Replace the word “parent” with “random person”, then you would clearly see this answer. However, the word “parent” is designed to disable your gut reaction to immoral behavior.
TheMatrixHasMe Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I don't know what the circumstances are, but let's reframe the situation: Your best friend marries a woman and becomes dependent upon her. She ends up abusing him regularly. After 20 years of abuse, he finally manages to get counseling and safe-house resources to escape the abusive home environment and the abusive spouse. He manages to get a divorce. A few months later, another friend of yours from another circle of friends tells you about this amazing woman that he's met. To your surprise, you learn it is the same woman, your other friends abusive x wife. Do you wish them all the best in their new relationship with a person you know is an abuser, or do you bring to their attention the persons history of abuse? In other words, why hand deliver children to known criminals?
Swingpirate Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 I agree this probably shouldn't even be up for discussion – it's kinda deranged when you think about it. I was really upset and think I wanted some extra validation given that the other person is a professional therapist for whom I had a lot of trust before this happened. He does not have any contact with his parents, but would consider his seven year-old son to connect with them, under certain conditions. He did say that in most cases it would be natural not to let it happen, but the reasons and conditions given to the contrary were: A. The son may request to see his grandparents B. If so, the parent can monitor the behavior of the grandparent towards the child, thereby ensuring child's safety C. In such a case, the child will not be dependent upon the grandparent in the same way as X once was, and the child could quickly be isolated from the grandparent, should anything inappropriate occur D. If successful, the grandparent may offer the child values that the parent cannot provide himself E. In any case, the child may still be better off being babysitted sometimes by the grandparent than in daycare/public school (!) If your parent raped someone, would you let them near your children? No. Interestingly that's the exact example that I used. Of course not.
dsayers Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Person X breaks contact with his or her parents due to having suffered continual abuse in childhood. Would it ever make sense for X to allow his/her parents to grandparent X:s children, and if so, for what reason and under what circumstances? The only condition I would allow for is if the abusers SUCCESSFULLY completed therapy, gained self-knowledge, did everything they could to make restitution to their victims, including providing them with therapy, etc. Based on the hypothetical, I have to assume that this is not the case or else a break of contact wouldn't have been necessary. Though that is at the discretion of the abused of course. For person X to subject their children to ANYBODY who is a POTENTIAL abuser is to abuse the child, if "only" by way of neglect. To do so with a KNOWN abuser is downright sinister. Of course my anger on the subject is aimed at the society that tells people that a title based on biological function is more important than such considerations.
Lians Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 In other words, why hand deliver children to known criminals? Beautifully put!
TheMatrixHasMe Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Thank you, Lians. I hope it helps Ola Nevander
Freedomain Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I just want to note that I completely agree with the feedback that's been provided. If you choose to interact with abusive people, hey that's your choice. I don't think it's healthy or wise, but it's your life and you will bear the consequences of such a choice. You do not have the right to expose your children to toxic personalities. It's your job to protect them and steward them towards adulthood. Exposing them to toxicity in the form of people or environment is not an option. A. The son may request to see his grandparents The child may also request to play in traffic. As their guardian you don't allow them to do so because it would be dangerous for their future health. When they are an adult then they can make that decision.
Swingpirate Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 I agree with everything that has been said and would never do that to my children. My disappointment is that I have been blind to this lack of commitment to principle on the part of the therapist. Where he apparently sees "grey areas" I see only sadism and cruelty. My concern now, as I have expressed to him, is that I cannot risk him doing to me what he sadly seems to consider morally acceptable to a child – to comply with or even push others towards abusive relationships under the pretense of "grey areas". And even if I genuinely believe that his approach to this scenario is a sign of confusion rather than of intentional cruelty, the end result is the same. Unless he changes his mind of course. I'm not sure a therapeutic relationship can or should survive such a fundamental discrepancy in values. What do you think?
dsayers Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I don't voluntarily do business with people that provide for me the opposite of what we agreed upon at the start of our business relationship. You could try and convince him of best practices in regards to exposure to abusers. However, this is fundamental to his chosen profession and not something a lay person should have to explain. I would not trust an optometrist to shoot a laser into my eyeball if all he could see was grey areas. Clarity is a requisite for competence.
cynicist Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 B. If so, the parent can monitor the behavior of the grandparent towards the child, thereby ensuring child's safety I don't agree with this at all. First, why should you be concerned about the child's safety unless you know they're with an untrustworthy person? That's like allowing your child to play with a scorpion as long as you can monitor the behavior of the creature lol. You shouldn't have to monitor anything. Secondly, we all know that you can't be yourself around your parents if they were harmful. We regress around our past abusers. You can't protect yourself around them so obviously you can't protect your child. E. In any case, the child may still be better off being babysitted sometimes by the grandparent than in daycare/public school (!) !!!!! I agree with everything that has been said and would never do that to my children. My disappointment is that I have been blind to this lack of commitment to principle on the part of the therapist. Where he apparently sees "grey areas" I see only sadism and cruelty. My concern now, as I have expressed to him, is that I cannot risk him doing to me what he sadly seems to consider morally acceptable to a child – to comply with or even push others towards abusive relationships under the pretense of "grey areas". And even if I genuinely believe that his approach to this scenario is a sign of confusion rather than of intentional cruelty, the end result is the same. Unless he changes his mind of course. I'm not sure a therapeutic relationship can or should survive such a fundamental discrepancy in values. What do you think? I think you are wise to consider the consequences of his behavior. If this were a theoretical discussion between you and your therapist I'd possibly attempt to show him the errors in his thinking, but in this case that would be the equivalent of saying that he knowingly and repeatedly put his child in danger. There is the concern that his actions might taint future advice, but I think more importantly I wouldn't be able to continue a session without thinking about what kind of harm is being done to that child and I would view the therapist as an enabler of it. Best case scenario, it is completely distracting from my own therapy.
andrew m. Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 This is something that I've been thinking about in my life as-well. While I don't have children, I've made the decision that it would be more healthy for not to have my grandparents in my life. I made the effort to communicate my feelings to them and was met with dismissal and rage. I don't think it would be healthy to allow the grandparents into the lives of your children after breaking with your immediate parents. I feel like it would be too easy to become triggered.
Recommended Posts