Turnell Consulting

Scrolling through LinkedIn while waiting for my flight this morning I came across a post that shared this linked article.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/magscambridge_in-my-very-new-article-for-abc-australia-activity-7393539171954425857-gxst?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAD0v26UB1ZuDfsKGYG-zKhX_v8gDCG0zkL4

It’s a well written and simply articulated piece about the intentionality of domestic abuse.

I am struck by the empathic curiosity Mags (the author) models in her positioning of the question posed to her at the conference she presented at.

Working in (residential) men’s behaviour change I have found the balance between a trauma informed, therapeutic approach and holding men accountable and responsible for their behaviours is one that constantly needs reflecting on, interrogating with ourselves and each other.

Like trying to stand and balance board, tipping one way and back the other - trying to be centred.

As we say in Child Protection - we need to compassion of Buddha and the mind of a steel trap. Too far either way is simply dangerous.

When magistrates are faced with children’s services professionals (or their agency appointed legal representation) seeking a court order to remove children from their family and take parental responsibility for the child - why does the magistrates not ask the plans for making sure they can provide a higher level of care across all the developmental dimensions of the child, prior to granting the order? Detailed. Clear. Specific. Evidenced based (which is what families need to show to get them back right?)
Maybe some do? I’d be interested to hear.
Because, in my experience the only thing the children’s services agency has to ‘evidence’ is that the child is at risk of significant harm if they remain with their family.
They do not have to clearly and in detail explain how they will keep the child safe or even safer than they currently are.
The research around outcomes for children forcibly removed from families (deemed by the professionals to be in the ‘best interest’ of the child) is woeful at best and more often than not simply devastating.
So why isn’t the onus on the ‘state’ to show how they will do better? Rather than just showing how bad the child’s family are doing?
How many kids would go home / not come into ‘care’ if this was required.
Because you cannot and will not convince me that (especially) residential care ‘homes’ provide safety and well being for traumatised children. Try as they might. *this is a system issue not a personal attack of resi care staff or managers.
I’ve done this work (and often feel a sense of deep shame) and even though I may have provided ‘safety’ in one aspect of the child’s life the trauma abuse and lifelong inter generational damage done is immeasurable

Can we stop diagnosing / discussing victim survivors (adult or child) with / as if they have a mental health disorder. When their responses to the abuse are ‘normal’ and expected human responses *this does mean that sometimes those behaviours could be harmful to a child

And

Can we please stop attributing blame for domestic abuse in all its forms to male ‘mental health’ problems. Men are responsible for the choices they make to use violence. *this doesn’t mean you cannot have compassion for traumatic life experiences.

Both are wrong. Both are dangerous.

Showing up and giving feedback is fine and fun when it’s all good 👍🏻
But showing up with kindness, compassion and clarity when it’s a difficult conversation is HARD.
But please. Don’t tell me ‘we have such a great relationship’ if you’ve not been able to find a way to have the trickier, more painful or uncomfortable conversations.
Personally and professionally ☀️