Sunday, January 20, 2013

Statement Analysis: Mother Takes to Jail to Make Statement

Susan Murphy Milano was a bright and shining light for victims of Domestic Violence.  I respected her because of her honesty.  She knew how some women attempt to jump on the Domestic Violence bandwagon for a variety of reasons, particularly in custodial battles.  

Here we have a case of a woman going to jail for 7 days for refusing to give her physical address to her ex husband.  

Is she truthful in her allegations of Domestic Violence?

Note that Statement Analysis is added to the article, in bold type, following specific quotes. 

In Statement Analysis, we recognize that everyone has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary, where a word may need clarification.  This is seen in former President Clinton's definition of "sexual relations"; where one must ask follow up questions.  

Like the word, "boy" spoken out loud may give one person the impression of a 7 year old, while yet another thinks of a new born, it is follow up questions, or context, that may be needed to clarify something. 

Exempt from this principle are two things:
1.  Pronouns
2.  Articles

Pronouns are instinctive.  "We' always means more than one person, for example.

Articles come quickly, and after millions of times using them, humans are instinctive in their use. 

Articles do not lie. 

"A car drove by..." uses the article, "a", indicating that the car is not recognized.  "Then, the car made a right turn", uses the article, "the", since "a" car has been recognized.  

It goes by very quickly in the English language.  

Internal stress is caused by direct lying, which is why deceptive people parse their words, instead, by editing them. 

Yet it is that by their pronouns, and by their articles, the truth may come out. 


YORK, Maine — A former York resident and mother of two minor children says she will go to jail in March to bring awareness of the problem of domestic abuse.
Heather Caldwell-Mason, 44, of Iowa said she will turn herself in on an arrest warrant from York District Court and serve seven days in jail during her spring break from college in Iowa starting Monday, March 25.
The reason she’s going to jail is her refusal to comply with a court order to disclose where she and the children are living, for fear of her former husband knowing the address, she said.
I wouldn’t release my address to an abuser,” she said. “I’m afraid of him. I refuse to give a physical address to a man who has abused me and my children.”
The first thing we notice is that the mother of two children says she would not release her address to "an" abuser; not "the", as a specific abuser. 
Next, we notice that she continues with the same use of an article:
"...to a man", not "the" man.  This makes the commitment to a specific man  reduced. 
Please note that she lists herself before her children. 
She does not say that the children's father abused her or her children.  We let the subject guide us.  She only says that she is afraid of him.  The use of "him" is specific; but when talking about abuse, she uses the article that is non specific. 
Family and friends will look after her children while she’s in jail, she said.
I very much want to serve my jail sentence,” Caldwell-Mason said. “I don’t want it to go unnoticed. I want it to be known this is happening in Maine. I know this is just not happening to me. I’m going to jail not just for myself, but for all women.
Please note that she is going to jail, listing herself first, but then adds, "for all women."
Please note that she does not say all women that are "victims" of domestic violence. 
On Jan. 2, York District Court Judge Michael Cantara issued an order for a warrant of arrest against Caldwell-Mason, ordering her to serve seven days in York County Jail and pay $1,500, due Jan. 18. The judge found her in contempt of court for failing to appear for a scheduled family hearing that same day.
“For no good reason,” Cantara said in the order, Caldwell-Mason has ignored and failed to comply with an August order to keep the children in York County.
Caldwell-Mason claims her former husband subjected the family to emotional and verbal abuse, and their children also to physical abuse.
This is not a quote but we have the list of abuse types:
1.  Emotional
2.  Verbal
3.  Physical abuse to the children is added last.  This does not claim physical abuse to herself. 
Attorney James Smith of Biddeford, representing the ex-husband, denies Caldwell-Mason’s claims.
There are no charges against his client, said Smith, a statement confirmed by Caldwell-Mason.
That there are no charges against him is a verifiable fact, not opinion.  
“[My client] does not want Heather Caldwell-Mason to go to jail. He wants to see his children,” said Smith. “She is doing a disservice to women of domestic violence by portraying herself as a domestic violence victim.”
In 2003, a caseworker from the state Department of Human Services, Bureau of Child and Family Services, sent a letter to Caldwell-Mason’s former husband, while the couple was still married. The department substantiated “physical abuse” to the children who had disclosed, “that you had spanked them on more than one occasion and that red marks remained afterwards,” the caseworker said, according to the letter.
Smith said his client, “did not take it as seriously as he should have at the time.”
His client never appealed the decision, he said.
“This is the one thing she has that she keeps putting out,” Smith said.
The couple divorced in 2005. His client lives in York County, though not in York, said Smith.
Under state law, a parent may not relocate children without the consent of the other parent or approval of the court, according to an August 2012 court order on the case. However, Caldwell-Mason notified her ex-husband she was moving and taking their 14-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son to Iowa while travelling to that state, according to the order from Judge Andre Janelle. She was ordered to immediately return to York County until the court could conduct a hearing.
Smith said his client received an email in June 2012 that Caldwell-Mason was taking the children to live in Iowa, during a time when he was seeing them every other weekend and on Wednesday nights for dinner.
“My client hasn’t seen his kids since August 10. She just thumbed her nose at the court,” Smith said. “We filed a motion for contempt.”
Caldwell-Mason said she has offered her ex-husband visitation rights, but what he really wants is to retain control over the family.
This is not a quote, but if true, is telling:  She offered visitation rights to a man she claims is so abusive that she would not disclose her physical address. 
She has remarried; Smith said his client has moved on and only wants to see his children.
Smith, who has been representing his client since 2008, said when he first got involved, the case was a matter of adjusting child support.
“In the hearings on support, she never talked about domestic or child abuse,” he said. “The allegations of abuse began later on.”
Smith has indicated it has taken distance to come to terms with what happened, and to heal.
A domestic violence hot line coordinator said she could make no comment on a specific case. However, in general, it’s not unusual for victims of domestic abuse to keep quiet, said Betsy Fleurent, a volunteer and hot line program coordinator for Caring Unlimited. To survive, especially if the male abuser is the breadwinner, many victims do not go to the police, she said.
“Most is not reported,” she said. “Control over someone is not a crime.”
Caldwell-Mason has been representing herself, and after the judge issued the order for her arrest, sent out a press release saying she would go to jail. She wrote to Gov. Paul LePage’s office asking to be released into his custody, a request denied by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, she said
She asked that the Gov of Maine take custody of her.  
The few quotes (and details) do not support her position.  She does not say that her ex husband abused her or the children.  
Articles, like pronouns, are instinctive and are not part of the personal, subjective, internal dictionary we all have.  They are immediate and do not lie.
Her use of the articles above shows that she does not accuse him of abuse.  

33 comments:

Hobnob said...

Liar liar panties on fire.

It seems that when a women wants to stop the ex from visiting their children or even seeking shared cuastody or sole custody the first thing out their mouths is he is an abuser, this seems to be the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

The pendulum has swung so far the other way, a woman claiming abuse even if only after the ex seeks visitation and with no evidence apart from her own words is instantly believed and the father loses all rights and may even face charges.

Yes there are cases of real violence and abuse, in such cases there is either prior history or physical evidence which has been explained away.
The priority is alwys any children first and then herself, something that is missing here.

I hope once she gets out of jail she is made to take a polygraph and he sues her pants off for defamation.

In custody battles it is invariably he said she said, there are cases where a parent ( note i said parent as abusers can be mom or dad) and in such cases the welfare of the child comes first.

A shouting match over something trivial ends up being magnified to emotional abuse, a restraining hand to stop a slap becomes physical abuse, everything is magnified to make them look good and the other evil incarnate.

Care has to be taken when deciding visitation rights as we saw with Susan Cox and her sons.
Any history, any police calls outs need to be checked and i would like to see both parents polygraphed where claims of abuse are made cos guess what, people lie of the stupidest and most trivial of things.

Vita said...

“I wouldn’t release my address to an abuser,” she said. “I’m afraid of him. I refuse to give a physical address to a man who has abused me and my children.”

What is it that she refused to offer? the address of where her children are residing.

Control is the abuse in her mind: her controlling where she and her children reside diminished, considered criminal by law.

(Possibly her felt) The law into play taking her rights as a mother, away from her, due to her ex-husband entering his reaction: No, you defied me, by taking my children to Iowa.

The cart before the horse.

She now remarried, planning this move, the children to be manipulated into believing this was best for them. She had them in her row so to speak. Her control over them, finalized. Then comes the court order, after the fact.

The abuse factor isn't the law, it is though how it is written, how it applies to her situation, and her mindset.

The court, acknowledging the law, informing Ex husband of her move out of state.

His reaction is her abuse factor, he has the ability to continue to control her, as she did move to Iowa. The law as it is, gives the " ex-husband" power, in turn overrides her decision, her move to Iowa, she taking her children with her.

This why she has no issue with going to jail for " all women"
She sees herself as a martyr.

She in her mind, moving on, establishing a new life, her new husband, her children incorporated. She divorced from their father. Who's rights were truly violated? not hers, not his, the children's rights were. They old enough to speak, old enough to understand they are pawns, in the center of, their parent's dysfunctional relationship.

This breaks down to what is needed and that is mediation. The move could have, may have taken place without all of this, had they been two adults and discussed this with a mediator.

That each side was heard and a amicable decision created for fairness of the children's well being. Abuse would be aired, proven at this time, if it truly existed, during this mediation.

The children moved without father's knowledge is telling. As they can speak for themselves, age 10, 12. She not to want this? this why she wants to contain them, hide them from him. Domestic Violence comes in all forms, affects all beings, verbal, mental, psychical. Abuse too, is withholding someone from their ability to speak, to inform, to be informed.

Had the EX husband taken the children, moved them out of state, without her knowledge, what would her reaction be? my best guess she would scream " parental abduction"
Arrest HIM!

No one wins in divorce, when children are products of it. There is no winning, it is not an obligation to be fair, it is though what you do as a parent, that affects your child/ren for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous said...

(From Ivanna-anna)

" a man who has abused me and my children.”

Could it be that she said it like this to put herself between the abusive man and her children? (The same way as when someone separates himself/herself from another person by placing them as far apart in a sentence as possible). This way the children are as far from the man as possible, and she is 'blocking' him <=> If the woman tried to physicslly block the man from getting access to the children, is it possible it would show like this in her sentence structure?

Hobnob said...

Anonymous said...
(From Ivanna-anna)

" a man who has abused me and my children.”

Could it be that she said it like this to put herself between the abusive man and her children? (The same way as when someone separates himself/herself from another person by placing them as far apart in a sentence as possible). This way the children are as far from the man as possible, and she is 'blocking' him <=> If the woman tried to physicslly block the man from getting access to the children, is it possible it would show like this in her sentence structure?


No, order is important , she places herself before her children showing she is more important than them

Anonymous said...

Peter, I'm do disappointed. I feel you do not understand the realities of domestic violence/abusive men. This happens frequently across this country--women being jailed for not giving over their children to visitation with an abuser. I wish my mother had ever stood up for me or tried to protect me against my violent father. Then, when I hear about women with the courage to go to jail rather than expose their kids to a violent man, I give them a lot of credit.
I have read here many times you criticizing mothers who allow violent men around their children, but now you are criticizing this woman for protecting her children, saying she must be lying.
How does this benefit her to go to jail? Why would she go to jail for a lie? Most accusations of domestic violence are true. Most women who say they are abused are telling the truth.
Good for this woman--at least her kids will know she cares about them. My father went so far as to punch me in the face when I was 10, went to school with a big bruise, kids asking about it, my mother never even asked me if I was OK.
You need to give women who seek to protect themselves and their children credit. There are many violent men out there--why would this woman make this up???????

Anonymous said...

I can't even believe you people are defending this guy. I read this. I see he is lying. Oh... his lawyer says the lady is lying and doing a disservice to domestic violence victims...oh OK! That proves she's lying! For real?
I was physically abused as a kid by my father, and it haunts me every day, effects my self-esteem. This lady should be applauded for protecting her kids!

Anonymous said...

Her statement "I wouldn't release my address to AN abuser." is not an indication of lying.

How would it sound if she had said "I wouldn't release my address to THE abuser." It doesn't sound right even to the ear does it? She is using the article "an" correctly--to denote that the man is "AN abuser"

It is obvious that many people do not understand how manipulative abusive men are. What this guy said to his lawyer, what the lawyer says--do you think that THAT is the truth? Do you think abusers lay all their cards out on the table and say "this is who I am, this is what I do". Abusers are highly deceptive people.

Why would most mothers, or really any mother, want to keep a NONABUSIVE man from seeing his kids? Why would she want to have no help and to keep the kids from having a father in their life?

Why would any woman go to jail to support a lie? Do you hear of many, or any people going to jail under the FALSE PRETENSE of protecting someone from violence?

Can you people not see who the deceptive person here is--is it the woman who is now going to have to suffer by going to jail or is it the alleged abuser who is claiming to be nonviolent?

I have been the victim of childhood physical abuse by my father who to this day is seen as a pillar of the community. The two faces these people present to their family vs. the outside community is a reality. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. They often seek to pathologize or villanize the abused (and I would say this woman is definitely villanized as she is being sentenced to jail time) as well as being accused of lying.
All I can say is that I believe this woman who is saying that this man abused her kids, and that is extremely serious, as I have been on the receiving end of physical abuse and it is devastating to a person's self-esteem and sets them up for depression and relationship difficulties. When your own father hits you, punches you, and shakes you and breaks your stuff, it is hard to ever believe you deserve love.
Also, there is not always a record of physical abuse. My mother never took me to a doctor. My mother never even asked me if I was OK. I am just shocked that people do not understand the realities that go on within abusive families and that the abuser's "denial" is being believed here as if he would come out and admit what he has done.
So sad, this woman does not deserve to be villanized. It is incredible to me how many times I have read on here criticism of women who allow violent men around their children, and then when this woman takes a stand against it, you all are jumping on her. So which is it? Should women protect their children against violent men or not?

Anonymous said...

All I know is, having been physically abused as a kid by my father, if my mother had stood up for me, showed she cared like this lady is for her kids, I would have had a much different life.
I feel broken-hearted to see you people calling her a liar.
If you guys care about truth, believe this lady. She's not lying. Going to jail is not going to benefit her. She's a woman standing up for her kids.

Anonymous said...

And, it says a caseworker substantiated that this man was spanking his kids so hard he left red marks. So, he was abusing them.
This is also abuse of the mother.
I would never allow anyone to hit my son, that would cause me incredible pain also. I know how it feels to have someone bigger taking their rage out on you. This mother should be applauded. Also, physical abuse escalates, as it did with me when I was a kid. That's how it started out, my father spanking me for so hard and long I thought I was going to die but then it escalated to being punched in the face, being thrown around, being shaken violently, etc. Sorry if this is too much detail. But I know from experience that violence escalates. Noone should be spanking a kid so hard they leave red marks. Or spanking them at all. But if this guy was spanking them so hard, he left red marks, he was hitting them very hard and probably with a belt or some other object.

Lemon said...

This is a tapestry of justice!

Anonymous said...

None of you even find it concerning that a caseworker substantiated that the father had spanked the children on more than one occassion and left red marks????
What about that?
Even if you believe this woman has nothing better to do than "martyr" herself by going to jail to defend a "lie"--a caseworker substantiated the father spanked the kids so hard he left red marks.
Is this not concerning?
I would not want a man like that anywhere near my children.
Do these children not deserve to live free from abuse?
And also, if the kids go with the father on visits, the mother won't even be around to keep an eye on the father's treatment of the kids.
It just makes no sense. I see women criticized on here left and right who have allowed violent men around there children or men who have threatened violence.
But here is a man whose violence has been substantiated and there is no support for her in trying to keep the kids away from him. I don't understand that.

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of the use of the article an that shows the mother isn't lying. This example is to show the situational and grammatical use of "AN" and has no other relevance:

What if a pitbull lives next door to me and I tell one of my neighbors how much I dislike this specific pitbull because it has barked and lunged at people in the past and even bit someone once. This neighbor then asks me "How come you put up a taller fence around your yard?" I respond "There is no way I am taking chances with (A) vicious dog!"
Am I lying????

Anonymous said...

Another example: A person who dislikes panhandlers because she believes they should just get a job is approached by a specific panhandler who asks her for money. She refuses to give the pandhandler any money. A bystander sees this and walks up to her and asks "Why didn't you give the panhandler any money?" The woman responds "I am not giving any money to AN unemployed person!"
Is she lying???

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Another example: A person who dislikes panhandlers because she believes they should just get a job is approached by a specific panhandler who asks her for money. She refuses to give the pandhandler any money. A bystander sees this and walks up to her and asks "Why didn't you give the panhandler any money?" The woman responds "I am not giving any money to AN unemployed person!"
Is she lying???
January 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Back to junior high grammar.

"an unemployed person" using the article, "an" indicates that the subject does not know or does not specify the person.

In the scenario, "an" is likely appropriate as the subject probably does not know the pan handler.

In the case of the mother (moving past the pit bull), this is a very specific man: her ex husband. It is very upclose and personal. We expect truth and the article should be definitive, not indefinite.

The woman claiming D/V is deceptive and is using this for custodial and likely other personal reasons.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I thought of another example:
What if I said to someone "I was in A car accident years ago."

Am I lying??? I have car insurance records and pictures of my totalled car to prove I'm not.

Anonymous said...


What if my neighbor keeps borrowing things and never returning them and he comes over and asks to borrow my lawn mover. I refuse to let him. My husband asks me "Why wouldnt you let him borrow the lawnmower? I respond "I am not lending outmy lawnmower to A thief!"

Trigger said...

It is good when deceit is revealed.

Anonymous said...

So, how SHOULD she have said it?

I am not giving out my address to THE abuser?

It doesn't even sound right to the ear.

Just because she knows her ex-husband well does not mean that she should have used the article "the" in this context.

When anyone uses "an" in the way this woman did, it is to denote "one of many" which does not indicate deception.
What if someone had a husband who is drinks excessively? The woman decides she wants a divorce. Her friend asks her "Why are you divorcing your husband?" The woman responds "I am not staying married to AN alcoholic."
The woman has used "AN" here to denote that her husband is an alcoholic, one of many alcoholics in the world.
I am no longer going to defend my point. It seems there is no room for differing opinions here, no matter how well thought out or respectfully presented, and I don't appreciate being insulted and told that my examples can be discounted by going back to junior high school grammar. I could defend myself and point out the degrees I have but why bother?
Besides, it says in the article that a caseworker substantiated that the kids had been spanked so hard that there were red marks left. So, I fail to understand how anyone feels they are revealing a great deception by saying this woman is lying about abuse. The abuse was already substantiated by the caseworker.
Statement analysis is interesting to me, but I feel the analysis of this article "an" in this context in not correct because she is using "an" to indicate "one of many". This is something we all do when speaking of someone even if we know them well and we are making a negative statement about them, calling them a name if you will, but also implying that the person is one of many people with that negative quality.
No longer returning here because I don't appreciate being insulted.

Dee said...

I noticed those who are defending this mother talk about being abused themselves in the past. There was a good past article Peter wrote about emotionalism. Go back, read it and then come back and try to read this article objectively without inserting your feelings and situation into it and see what you get.

Yes, it is concerning that the father admits to spanking so hard it left red marks. But it is also concerning that this mother is deceptive in her statements of abuse. Why would she do that?

Anonymous said...

I'm not responding to anything until someone addresses the example I gave of the woman and the alcoholic husband and her use of "an" as the grammatical use and context completely parallels this mother's use of "an".
Just because Peter wrote an article about emotionalism does not mean that my comments are not true just because I was abused in the past. If anything I have the past experience to know what it feels like to be in an abusive home, and to be aware of some of the tactics and lying techniques used by abusers.
In the article you can also see examples of minimization which is commonly used by abusers.
The article says how the ex-husband did not take his act of spanking the children on multiple occassions until red marks were left "as seriously as he should have at the time" ( according to the lawyer). But then the lawyer, right after saying that his client did not take his physical abuse of his children "as seriously as he should have" right away minimizes the physical abuse by saying that "this is the one thing that she has that she keeps putting out." So which is it? Should the man have taken his destructive actions towards his children more seriously? Or should the mother just stop harping on it? It really can't be both ways. But, regardless, it shows this abuser and his lawyers efforts, and very successful efforts I might add, since this woman is being taken away from her children for a week and imprisoned, to minimize the abuse of the children.
Abusers are very good liars. They are very good at making themselves look like victims as this abuser has done quite successfully. Is he going to jail for a week for beating his children? No. Is the mother going to jail for a week for trying to protect her children? Yes.
Who's the victim here? The kids who got beaten and their mother? Or the man who beat the kids?
It's frightening the ability they have to turn people against their victims. I have been through it as a kid, and I won't remain silent.

Dee said...

@anon 11:32....
In the example you gave - "an alcoholic" would be the correct way to state it. My alcoholic, the alcoholic, my kids alcoholic doesn't make grammatical sense, unless you were to say my alcoholic husband, etc.
Abuse of any kind is very up close and personal to the victim. I would expect her to say "I'm not going to give my address to my abuser" or "I'm not going to give my address to my child's abuser".

"Who's the victim here? The kids who got beaten and their mother? Or the man who beat the kids?"

The kids are the victims. They didn't ask for any of this. Not for a father who has hit them and not for a mother who will use that fact to her own ends.

Lemon said...

Anons getting demanding up in here.

Anonymous said...

Dee, I appreciate your thoughtful response to the example I gave. It seems we are definitely coming from the same place--concern for the kids' welfare. I agree that the way you worded it "my abuser" or "my child's abuser" would also be correct and a way that she could have worded it. It is interesting because on and off today before I read your response (I just now read it) I was thinking about how people word such things when they are angry with someone and have decided that a certain person is a (fill in the blank with whatever negative term). That's the conclusion I came to--they either say the person is "A" (fill in the blank) or "MY" (fill in the blank). Like for example a person could say of someone they dislike "I am not spending time around "an" enemy or "I am not spending time around "my" enemy when referring to the disliked person. All I could figure was that, at least for me, I think sometimes if I were to say "an enemy" it would be out of a desire to distance myself from involvement with them. I feel like when I say "my enemy" it implies some kind of closeness in a way. I am agreeing with you though she definitely could have said it that way though. We are on the same page--concern for the kids. Again, I appreciate the thoughtful response.

Lis said...

"Anonymous said...

All I know is, having been physically abused as a kid by my father, if my mother had stood up for me, showed she cared like this lady is for her kids, I would have had a much different life.
I feel broken-hearted to see you people calling her a liar.
If you guys care about truth, believe this lady. She's not lying. Going to jail is not going to benefit her. She's a woman standing up for her kids.
January 20, 2013 at 9:05 PM"

Anonymous, I am sorry for the abuse that you suffered and I acknowledge that it happens and is a terrible thing.

But, I do not understand why you assume this woman is telling the truth? Are you seeing your situation instead of hers? She is not speaking the words of someone who is telling the truth. I would think this would make you angry, having lived the truth to have someone trivialize it by using it dishonestly to get their own way or for the purpose of revenge.

There are women who are every bit as toxic and destructive as some men can be, neither sex has a corner on that. As long as you can only see the man as the possible abuser, you are vulnerable to being deceived.

Take a look at http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/ and read about some of the things men have to deal with in relationships with toxic women. Their pain is increased by the fact that authorities and many people refuse to acknowledge that men can be victims and that women can be abusers.

I like to listen to the police scanner in my area from time to time and just from my own listening I can tell you there are equal, if not more, calls where the wife is the attacker in domestic violence situations.

Lis said...

Anon, reading your example, I think the person would more likely say something like:

"I am not spending time around that jerk!"

"that" referring to one specific jerk.

In the case we are analyzing here, I would think she would have said something like "I refuse to give MY physical address to THAT man.” Do you see how much more natural that sounds? In the case of a sentence like this, one would not use the word "my", but would use a word that specifies they are referring to an exact person, such as the word "that". That abuser.

Hobnob said...

“I wouldn’t release my address to an abuser,” she said. “I’m afraid of him. I refuse to give a physical address to a man who has abused me and my children.”

Where is the ownership of being abused?
What is missing is the word MY in relation to the abuser.

Expected is the following
“I wouldn’t release my address to MY abuser,” she said. “I’m afraid of him. I refuse to give a physical address to THE man who has abused me and my children.”


If she can't take ownership we can't do it for her.
The articles are all wrong.
She uses AN indicating no one specific or in particular, A man again doesn't give us any indication she knows him rather than the expected THE because she has told us who he is.

Statement Analysisis not about the emotions of a case, believeing what someone says because we are led to believe they are telling the truth because of their gender, parental status, the mother is always right the fathers are always abusive or the father is a victim because his spiteful ex is hiding his kids.

We look only at the words spoken. The subject will tell us the truth or the deception by the words they use.

JerseyJane said...

When MY abuser went out with the TRASH(some call it divorce or moving on), the xwife saw him as 'an abuser' thrown in a pile with the rest of them...

Fear of being sued or whatever makes her not call him "the abuser.".....if the man was charged, the xwife would gladly refer to him all day long to whoever would listen as "the abuser".... THE abuser needs the 'stamp of approval' from the courts....
There are many "THE ABUSER"s that didn't get crown yet, sad at that......Thousands of "AN ABUSER"s roaming around out there, waiting for a new owner to make them a MY....... :-(
Anon, i hear ya!
Abuse is a cycle and the language in it goes in a cycle.

Anonymous said...

JerseyJane--Thank you for understanding the point I was making and you summed it up perfectly in your whole post and also with what you wrote at the end "abuse is a cycle and the language in it goes in a cycle."

Sus said...

Once a victim of abuse feels free of her abuser's control, she would use the article A rather than THE. The makes him hers, and she wants him to be a part of a group away from her...it is distancing.

Second, emotional and verbal abuse can be far more damaging than physical abuse. Fear of having your children or loved ones harmed is a form of emotional abuse.

I have to really wonder about a father who has a substantiated child abuse report on him. It was serious enough that it was called in and found he left marks more than once. The attorney can only say HE DIDNT TAKE IT SERIOUS ENOUGH and it's the only thing SHE HAS TO PUT OUT THERE.

Last, visitation rights are different than letting someone know your physical address, phone number, email, etc. True emotional abusers keep their control, often through the children, long after divorces.

I don't know who is telling the truth here, but I can't help but think back to all the comments here about children who "disappear" and why didn't their mothers protect them. I would err on the side of caution till their is a full investigation and questioning of the children.

Lis said...

I think people are missing the point about the statement. She does not need to "own" the abuser by calling him "mine". Who says "my abuser"? It would imply you were owning the abuse!

She does need to specify him as THE abuser she is talking about.

"I wouldn’t release my address to an abuser" is a theoretical statement anyone might make, it does not refer to an actual event. Someone who has never been abused or been in the situation of having to give their address could make the same statement. It is not specific.

"I will not give my address to that man" would be expected.

Sus said...

That makes sense, Lis. I see the point about not referring to a specific event.

Anonymous said...

Not that it matters because this article is over a year old, but this woman never turned herself in. There are now warrants out for her arrest and she is bashing the police for doing their job.

She is the abuser. She kidnapped her children and lied to everyone. Her ex-husband did not abuse her or her children. She lies and manipulates to get her way. I personally know her and her children. She only wants attention.

Anonymous said...

Not that it matters because this article is over a year old, but this woman never turned herself in. There are now warrants out for her arrest and she is bashing the police for doing their job.

She is the abuser. She kidnapped her children and lied to everyone. Her ex-husband did not abuse her or her children. She lies and manipulates to get her way. I personally know her and her children. She only wants attention.