This is classic obfuscation. Notice that UNNAMED DAD just sorta kinda became custodial, ya know:
"He had been left as sole carer for the children through the neglect of the mother."
A couple of things here worth noting:
1) The curious use of the passive tense. He "had been left"? What the heck does that mean? The sentence is robbed of all agency. We're not told who do what to whom, much less when or how or why. We're not told what specifically happened to the mother or why she apparently no longer has custody. It's implied--without saying so--that she left on her own. But there is no definitive statement to that fact. Or did others take custody away from her through legal means? All we have is meaningless fog.
2) But we do have the complaint that Mum was guilty of "neglect." What we aren't told--once again--is what that means. We have no examples. On the other hand, we see from a carefully reading of Dad's deeds that this wasn't just neglect, but out-and-out abuse. So why does he have custody if the better-parent rule is (presumably) at work?
3) And how do we know any of this? Notice that isn't clarified either. I suspect that this is an abuser's tale. They often speak in this curious vague way. Somehow Mum is, um, not around. And yea, she was no good. Right.
4) If this guy assaulted a 15-year-old girl before (his daughter? Or somebody else's daughter?), why was he allowed to gain and retain custody? Typical double-standard for fathers.
I would like to see the media follow up on these stories for once, and stop taking abuser tales at face value. Whenever you have a father who turns out to be a violent control freak with what is apparently full custody, and no sign of the mother, that should automatically trigger a red flag. What happened to the mother? Is she alive and safe? Was she driven out of the home by violence that was similar to what was inflicted on the kids?
And what a waste of time and money these "nurturing" programs are. They simply provide cover for these vicious men.
http://www.bromsgroveadvertiser.co.uk/news/11175943.Bromsgrove_man_jailed_for_child_cruelty/
Bromsgrove man jailed for child cruelty
4:20pm Monday 28th April 2014 in News .
A BROMSGROVE man who subjected his four children, all under 10, to a regime of harsh physical treatment has been jailed for two years.
The 43-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was described as "more than a bully" by Recorder Edward Coke at Worcester Crown Court.
He said that the defendant, who pleaded guilty to child cruelty between 2010 and 2013, had caused emotional suffering as well as physical pain. The recorder added that his loss of temper had been appalling.
Prosecutor Peter Grice described how the father had used a two foot piece of wood as a smacking stick to hit the children, although none had been badly injured.
When the family had gone on holiday to Cornwall he had forgotten his smacking stick so he got the children to pick a branch from a tree so he could use it to hit them. He also broke a wooden spoon when he hit one child on the head.
The punishment for a youngster who soiled his clothes was putting him in a cold shower.
Mr Grice said the defendant was in breach of a conditional discharge, imposed in 2011, when he admitted common assault on a 15-year-old girl. He had bruised her head as he roughly carried her through a gate.
Diljit Bachada, in mitigation, said her client had been to nine sessions of a nurturing programme and had been awarded a certificate. He had been left as sole carer for the children through the neglect of the mother. He had not been helped by social services and now regretted his wrongdoing.
The defendant, who described himself as a dinosaur in his treatment of the children, was told he must serve half his sentence before being released on licence. He must also pay a £100 victim surcharge.