Difficult situation. The law is not designed to protect women from men, it's designed to protect vulnerable parties from the people abusing them. It's not gendered even if the overwhelming percentage of violence is.
I wonder how a person who is described as selfish and self indulgent will cope with looking after children when he has avoided that responsibility in the past. There won't be much in it for him financially if they are teenagers and she has no money. I'm curious about his motive.
If there is evidence of violent or irrational behaviour in the home, the police and courts have little choice but to consider it. Regardless of the circumstances of the accused. The inclination to believe a perpetrator is just having a bad day has resulted in some catastrophic events in the last couple of years. It's not surprising they are cautious.
Yes, I know, I sound like a horrible person, but you must bear in mind there are processes in place that must be adhered to. Orders banning even supervised contact are a fairly serious step to take, though. Is he that convincing or is there more to it? These are the questions that need to be asked, in a completely unemotional way. Which is very difficult and probably not what you want to hear. There are greater issues at stake, currently playing out at increasing volume in this country, where those making complaints must be taken seriously.
If he is manipulating her, for whatever reason, removing oxygen from the fire is the most effective defence. I think she should concentrate on establishing some contact with the kids and not focus too much on an expensive and protracted legal battle to overturn whatever orders are in place. They need to know she loves them and cares about them. He is likely to decide it's all too hard, if he's the sort of person you seem to think he is. Nothing like a couple of hungry, hormonal young people in the house to cramp your style.
