[andreashaerter]

> if you have a choice

I just read:

> If I had learned one thing from my past life was that if you see the signs of an abusive relationship, you have the option to walk out, and you don't, all that follows is your own fault.

so... :)

[jnovek]

Regardless of whether the metaphor stands up, this is a horrible thing to say. Abuse victims are not responsible for the abuse they receive.

[mrmanner]

I had the same thought at first, but in context I think the quoted text refers to business relationships. Which makes all the difference.

[Spooky23]

They're really the same thing. I think of the classic Walmart/Vlasic pickle story.

https://eng121.net/online%20textbook/cause-effect/The%20Wall...

[reactordev]

No but they have the power to remove themselves from the situation and should have a prudence to do so. We have places for women and children to go to escape abuse, so find your hideout and escape the abusive relationship.

[jnovek]

Here’s a cool fact: in America only 35% of DV survivors retain full custody of their children and only 45% retain primary custody.

If you flee domestic violence you are more likely than not to lose custody of your children to your abuser.

[lelanthran]

> Here’s a cool fact: in America only 35% of DV survivors retain full custody of their children and only 45% retain primary custody.

That's because joint custody is the default and you need to have really good evidence when you want to restrict a kids access to their father.

> If you flee domestic violence you are more likely than not to lose custody of your children to your abuser.

"Being forced to allow kids to see their father" is, to you, the same as "losing custody of your children"?

You're talking absolute horse puckey here. I'm also pretty certain you don't believe it.

[dang]

Please make your substantive points without calling names or crossing into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[lelanthran]

Thank you dang; here's the thing, even the most charitable reading of GPs comment indicates that he feels being unable to restrict a child's right of access to their parent is unfair in some way.

No matter what you may think of parents, it is absolutely horrific that someone will argue for restricting the rights of children, and do it in a way that he feels is acceptable in society (custody is only in small part about having access to one's children; the actual right is to the child, not the parent - the child has the right to access to their parent).

I wanted to make him understand that trampling over children's rights is not acceptable.

[joquarky]

[flagged]

[dang]

Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[reactordev]

I actually have extensive experience on this subject for the last 20 years. Thanks though. https://www.helpguide.org/relationships/domestic-abuse/getti...