defiantbadgirl
Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005 Status: offline
|
An ex co-worker of mine was in a relationship with a real psycho. When she was in training, he would call every hour to check up on her. He even showed up and tried to get her to leave work because he didn't want to watch their children. I asked her if he was violent toward her. She said yes he was. She then told me she had family in another state and asked if I thought she should take the children and flee. I still think about her from time to time and hope she's okay. But the situation lead me to look up what options domestic violence victims who share children with their abusers have. Using common sense, the further one flees from the abuser, the safer one is. But victims who share children with their abuser can't even leave the state or they could go to prison for kidnapping. Victims of domestic violence who have children can go to prison for "failure to protect," but they're not allowed to move far enough away to do that. Women have the option of fleeing with their children to battered women's shelters, but that's for a very limited amount of time. Men who are victims of domestic violence don't even have that option. How do you tell someone who has children with a non-consentual abuser the law won't let them flee far enough away to be safe?
_____________________________
Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week. Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008
|