Social Services punish mothers for DV

"he and she deny it to the police (which they did) then the police cannot press charges"

See I don't buy this. The logic of that, is that murder could never be prosecuted because the murderer denies it and the victim isn't there to claim it and there are no other witnesses. I wonder how hard police, lawyers etc., work with victims of DV to ensure that they don't retract their statements and what practical measures they offer to ensure that that's not the only thing the victim feels they can do.

The most obviously glaring thing to me about all this, is that I think it probably increases the risk of abuse to women and children. If you know that you might have your kids taken away if you report DV, then you just won't report it, will you? So how does that help protect kids? I would be interested to know how many women are influenced not to report, by fear of their children being taken away, I wonder if WA or anyone else has done any research on it.

And - courts should stop ordering contact with violent parents. I understand Sakura's point exactly - for some reason, women cease to be responsible for their children's safety once they split from the abuser and hand the children over to him every two weeks, knowing that she is delivering them into a violent environment. In that case, she doesn't get prosecuted for doing so, does she, she's threatened with prosecution and in some cases, losing care and control of the children to the violent perpetrator, if she doesn't do so. Bit of a rum do, isn't it?

For everybody's information.

You would think, really, that the authorities would prefer the option of using injunctions to remove the violent man from the home: it is, after all, cheaper for them not to have to pay for a woman and children to stay in a refuge or hostel, or be rehoused. Adult males are low priority on rehousing lists and it's more likely that the abusive man (unless a chaotic addict or alcoholic with no job) will have a high enough income to be able to house himself elsewhere.

I wonder if a big part of the problem is that women are not being told that they can get an abuser removed from the home and barred from returning. Occupation orders and non-molestation orders do exist and are available - yet the abuse victims are often told to pack and run, when it is possible to have the abuser, rather than the abused, evicted from the house even if he is the owner of it: the courts IMU see the house as the children's home and prioritize their right to live in it free from violence.
While it might be necessary for a mother to flee with her DC temporarily (eg if the man is very violent) until the occupation order is obtained, she should then be able to move back into the home.
Isn't it also possible, when a couple-relationship has broken down (though not through abuse) but neither party wants to leave the family home, for a court order to be obtained that either compels one to leave or for the home to be sold?

here is sometihng. I think the hooha may have been on here! Sounds like they are going to trial them next summer

just another point as well, i would absolutely never condone 'threatening' women. However i do think that you have to be honest and transparent with women too. Honest about the impact that living with an abuser is having upon her children and the possible long term impacts on this. Women are generally motivated by their children's best interests but sometimes they can struggle to focus on their children's needs because their own situation is so overwhelming and difficult. I think it is important that those supporting women don't try and protect women from the impact the abuse is having on their children - i don't think women would want that either. Sometimes people supporting women in abusive situations have to have very difficult conversations with them about their children's welfare and how this can best be served. But i think if you do this from a position of honesty and empathy then you will have the best chance of forming a partnership with the woman, because most women do actually want to do the best they can for their children

That sounds like a great start radio. I think the plans were to extend it to here but there was a hoo-ha and it may have been dropped. Will have a look. They were called "Go orders" in the press.

In Scotland Social Services can apply for an Exclusion Order form the Court. This allows for a named person (an abuser) to be excluded or ejected from the child's home for the purpose of protecting the children. Other conditions can be attached to it too, like powers of arrest, that named person must not go within vicinity of child's school etc.

This would achieve some of what people are asking for above. I am not sure how widespread the use of them is (am sure WA have some stats). However i do know for them to work in a meaningful way women need to be at a point where they are strong enough to support the order and do things like contact the police when the abuser breaches the conditions etc.

I thought that had been dropped in England, the barring for 4 weeks thing. Maybe it happens in scotland? Certainly I read something like that.

Does anyone on the thread really think that the current approach is logical? It seems that whenever other approaches are talked about in a theoretical way, a lot of people just blankly say "you can't do that" without even considering whether it would be desirable or not.

For instance it is totally illogical that in a household some people (the blameless ones) have no rights to the point that they can be removed from their home. Other people (the abusive ones) have an absolute right to stay put. That is simply not logical. These are all people, it makes no sense that some people have different rights to other people.

I also think it's strange that every suggestion is met by tales of violent alcoholic drug addicted women to justify this policy that the children must be removed. Not all women in DV situations are violent addicts. What about all the ones who aren't who are met with this threat when they are simply trying to do their best in a terrible situation and need support and help.

Great, that is a start.

Well its a new thing only coming into place the police will be able to prevent the alleged abuser from having contact with their victim or remaining in the home for 48hrs. And if need be they can get a court order to extend it to 28days even if there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Yes they have started that police now have powers to ban people suspected of abusing a partner from their homes for up to four weeks.

Yes I understand what you are saying. It looks like the standard of evidence needed to prosecute for abuse is higher than the standard of evidence needed for SS.

But couldn't ASBOs or something similar be created for DV so that the standard of evidence would be lower, so that action could still be taken?

The difference is that SS do not discount any evidence they listen to neighbours hearsay, go by what the couple say and by what they see etc. They do not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the courts do. Also the law recognises an adults decision if a victim does want to prosecute then all evidence the SS has plus the victim themselves can be used.

But don't the police rely on evidence from SS in order to make prosecutions? Shouldn't the evidence that SS has that abuse is taking place and that therefore children need to be removed, enough evidence to make the police carry out a prosecution?

SS don't have power over adults you have confused what the SS do and what the police do. SS is there for the children that is their purpose they get involved in situations where children are at risk, the taking away of children is the very last resort they really don't want that.

It's all about the victim wanting to prosecute in your 2 examples the offended party pursues prosecution.

Ultimately the children can be returned when the situation is under control it can be a 'better safe than sorry' approach. However the law cannot cannot just take people and incarcerate them in the same way they are bound by proof/evidence something they rely on the victim heavily for.

I might be asking a really obvious and stupid question but if the consensus is that DV is also child abuse. Why don't abusers get charged with DV and child abuse?

Surely the police will then have the onus to investigate the crime from the woman and child's point of view?

I mean the investigation and procecution of child abuse doesn't normally have a reliable witness statements, etc. Am I missing something?

I think I understand Sakura's point perfectly to be honest. Everyone agrees that child abuse is taking place but only in some vaguey wishy washy kinda way but not in the proper legal sense?

The result is what to make women leave their homes (which for of us is our biggest asset), their jobs (unless the assumption is that is isn't important), support networks. This is because legal prosecution is considered more weighty as someone's 'liberty' is at risk? Does anyone not see the irony?

So yes, women are being punished by depriving them of their liberty to safeguard the abusers freedom actually!

He would never go to the police over the abuse.

SS have to protect the children, and if the abused parent does not take steps to do so, they will, regardless of gender.

A relative of mine was being abused by his partner. SS had been involved in her life for some time before he got with her (she had 3 children with her Ex). When they realised the abuse was going on they took the children (they came to stay with my family). The parents attended courses and the children were returned. The abuse started up again and in order to keep the children he had to leave. SS supported his claim for residency of all 5 children and he got it. He was told that should they re-start their relationship SS would once again get involved. They are not back together, but she does get visitation.

SS are not in the business of punishing anyone. They try to protect kids and it didn't matter who was doing the abusing so I cannot see that this is a feminist issue.

But if social services have the power to remove children then they must have evidence. Why isn't that evidence enough?

We sometimes read that SS has the power to remove new born babies from their mothers where the mothers have low IQs, as in the recent case in Spain, where teh Spanish authorities have ruled that the mother should be allowed to keep her child. If they have this amount of power, then how come they do not have enough power to prosecute an abuser if they feel it serious enough to remove the children?

People can be prosecuted for speeding and for not paying their TV licences and yet abuse is allowed to continue, as long as children are removed. It does seem topsy-turvy.

Because unlike a cat what the victim says carries weight, so if they don't want to prosecute you cannot force them too they are adults.

Also the cat is used as evidence so support is provided if a victim does not give support (since they are normally the only actual witness/and would have the physical evidence of the violence on them as bruises etc) what can you use in court?

Children are similar that because they are not adults people have to step in for them as they have no capability of leaving or capable of understanding they are being abused, which is why less is needed to remove them than what would be needed to convict a person.