Why don’t victims just leave? - SAFER (a domestic and family violence resource for Australian churches)
Here is what I think is a balanced article about DV and why people don't or can't always leave. There have been a few comments that if she loved her daughters enough then she should have left. Hence the insinuation (though sometimes expressly stated) that she must have stayed because she loved the lifestyle CW money gave her more than her kids. These comments may be right but based on what we know, we can't know this.
I just want to point out that it is not always about the money. We don't even know if DV played a part in NO or CW life but if it did we cannot assume she only stayed because of money. Leaving is the most dangerous time. In a hypothetical situation where one side has significant money and connections, is it totally implausible that threats are made against the one wanting to leave to either their person and / or those they care about?
Can we be a little more broad minded about this case please? NO may be a victim, even if she did commit suicide she may not be a murderer, she may be but we don't that yet!
A previous poster who shared she had been affected by DV has my utmost respect.
Her daughters seem to at least have aunts who are involved in their lives on a regular basis, if not their fathers (we know one dad lives three hours away but not the status of London’s dads custody and visitation schedule AFAIK). If the living situation was unhealthy, NO could have asked the aunts to take the girls until she could find a new place to live. Maybe even the one dad who has expressed his concerns regarding the living situation would have taken in both girls if it was so bad. JMO