My friend said I should share this here, she said some may find it an interesting read.

SomethingElse78

I was told basically that what I was reporting/alleging did not exist and therefore could not be the case. My response….

Dear Mr. ,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the clarification regarding the legal distinction between abuse and neglect as separate categories. In hindsight, I understand that the phrase I used, "abusive neglect," is not a recognised legal term, and I apologise if this caused any confusion. However, I would like to explain why this wording came to mind and why I believe it is an accurate reflection of what I witnessed.

I fully acknowledge that abuse and neglect are legally distinct, but in practice, they can also be deliberately intertwined in a way that magnifies harm. As you know, neglect is often understood as a failure to act, while abuse is understood as an intentional act of harm. What I witnessed, however, was neglect as an intentional act. It was not mere oversight or irresponsibility, but a calculated and deliberate use of neglect as a tool of control and harm.

To put it another way: Abuse is the act; neglect is the weapon. Or, if you prefer, abuse is the weapon, and neglect is the ammunition.

The neglect in this case was not passive, it was actively harmful. The individual in question was deliberately isolated financially, residentially, and socially in a way that ensured there were no witnesses to their suffering. This was not simply a failure to provide care; it was a weaponization of deprivation, designed to exert control and inflict damage while maintaining plausible deniability.

Because of this, I found it difficult to view the abuse and neglect as entirely separate in my mind. One enabled the other, and together, they created a harm far greater than the sum of their parts. In my view, such a combination where neglect is used as a means of abuse is not just two separate wrongs occurring at the same time. It is a methodology of harm that warrants its own serious recognition.

I appreciate that legal language serves an important function, but terminology does not alter facts. No matter what words we use to categorise it, the reality remains: an individual was harmed through a calculated mixture of both neglect and abuse. My goal in reaching out is not to challenge legal definitions, but to ensure that what I witnessed is recognised for what it truly was, a deliberate and compounded act of harm.

I appreciate your time and consideration and I’m happy to provide any further details or clarification.

Sincerely,

Lenar3556

This would appear to be an ecumenical matter.