Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Social Services punish mothers for DV

340 replies

SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 00:18

Why do they do this?
Why is it that no-one is under any obligation to keep the abuser away from the mother, and yet the mother has a responsibility to keep her children away from the abuser?
The very fact that the authorities need the mother to "prove" she is taking steps to keep the children save show that they believe the husband is abusive/violent. ANd yet it's not him who is hounded or punished.
I'm so Angry at hearing women whose partners are given bail after committing some atrocity against their wife or children, only to do it again as soon as they get back home, and for the mother to be told she is endangering her children.
The law is so backward Sad
Surely if the man is known to be abusive, you take steps to remove him from the home????

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:50

GOblinchild, The system is flawed. Do you have any suggestions on how it could be more efficient? Collecting evidence, building a case, it all takes time. Removing the abuser immediately would be most efficient.

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:50

santasackura, you are trying to make thsi a SS issue when it is a police issue.

SS are there to protect children, not to carry out the law.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:48

it isn't SS job to remove abusers though, it is their job to protect children.

if a man owns his house and his wife wont press cahrges to have him arrested and removed then he has every right to remain in that house. SS have a duty to protect teh children that live there. they cannot force him to leave so they must remove the children.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:48

Oh GOD, GC, the reason I'm posting this is because I think the abuser should be forced out of the home, precisely to stop the next generation from having to witness abuse

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:46

Back to evidence again, and building a case against an aggressor.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:45

SS can't force someone out of their home. That is a problem.
THis is where a new law needs to come in> There is no reason whatsoever why an abuser should not be forced to leave the family home

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:45

Children for whom abuse, and the witnessing of it is the norm frequently grow up to become abusers or victims.
By not acting to counter this, the next generation is being formed.

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:45

What GC said. I have never yet heard of a case where the abused was told they were responsible for the abusers behaviour, only that they were told they were responsible for their dc safety.

Like I said I can see where you are coming from, yes the system could be better. However, in the end, there is far more ability to protect the chidren than there is to do anything else and, in a flawed system, this is a good thing.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:44

I just can't get my head around the fact that a woman, who is probably frightened of leaving, is told that she is responsible to stop the abuser, when what should happen is that the power that be should immediately remove the abuser> there needs to be a law that allows SS to identify an abuser and focus on him in their investigations
The onus cannot be on the victim

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:44

the only way you can stop an abuser living with children is to remove the children. SS cannot force someone out of their own home. if teh abuser will not leave the home then the other parent has a duty to remove the children. if tehy dont, SS must intervene for teh safety of teh children.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:42

I remember for the Baby P case, a special law had been brough in specifically for a situation where there was more than one adult involved in the abuse, because in the past the adults had all blamed each other for the death of a child, but this new law mean that the adults in the house couldn't do that anymore

I think there needs to be a new law, something that stops the abuser from being allowed to continue to live with children. There is something lacking right now in the law

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:42

i agree that there needs to be more co-operation between police and SS.

but SS do not remove chidlren to punish anyone.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:41

no teh mother isn't told she is responsible fro teh abuser's behaviour. she is responsible for not protecting her children from teh abuser.

allowing your children to witness abuse, is in itself abuse. the mother has ab obligation to prevent taht happeneing if she knows her partner is violent.

teh abuser has an obligation to stop abusing.

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:40

She is not responsible for the abuser's behaviour, but she is responsible for herself and any minors in her care. By not acting in their best interests, she is failing.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:39

WhyHavePets Yes I see that, but what I'm having trouble with is the way the abuse is seen as something separate. The police deal with the abuser and SS deal with the children. It doesn't work as well as it should and it results in scenarios where the mother is told she is responsible for the abuser's behaviour.
There needs to be more cooperation between the police and SS or even a separate law or something in place for a situation like this.

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:38

In my job, I get to see the consequences of abuse for the children.
So I'm not exactly posting from an unbiased point of view.

Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:35

Well yeah, I'm not saying me jumping is a good plan. I'm not batman. Grin

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:34

Santas, when SS say "you need to take steps to protect your child..." they are not punishing the mother, they are protecting the dc.

The fact that the abuser is not punished is down to the police and that is totally different.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:33

DansMommy No you've misunderstood. MAny women leave safely, but of the women who are murdered , the murders happen when the violent spouse realises she's going to leave him

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:33

'When you have children, you have a responsibility to protect them. I'd jump off a building for mine. '

I'd shove an abuser off a building for mine, and work it so that I didn't get caught. Grin

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:31

They are not focusing on the mother, they are focusing on the child. If the abused returns to the abuser and puts the child in danger then the child requires extra protection. Fact.

I do understand your point, I do see where you are coming from but the fact is that SS is about dc. Anything else is down to the police and that is where it all seems to be getting confused here.

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:29

One child a week is murdered by their carer, and in over 50% of DV cases, the child/ren was also a victim of abuse. 90% of cases, the children were in the same house whilst the abuse was being carried out.
(I'm using stats from the Refuge website)
An adult can leave, the younger the child, the less chance that they can escape. That's one of the reasons that the stats for teenage runaways is so high, they leave when they have a chance.

Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:29

Firstly, you can't say that 'It's a fact that most women are murdered as they try to leave their abuser'. That's ridiculous. Many, many more that 2 per week leave safely.

Secondly, I don't care how scared you are. When you have children, you have a responsibility to protect them. I'd jump off a building for mine.

Thirdly, if someone is genuinely powerless to leave, then surely it is best that SS remove the children. Would you suggest they leave them there so as not to punish the mother?

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:28

I don't get that the mother is in a position where she is punished for the DV, and the abuser is not. NO I don't get it

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:24

santa, they focus on teh children's safety. if both parents are tehre tehy will speak to them both, as i explained, most abusers wont stick around to be told they are an abuser, it would make it too real for them, tehy would be forced to admit their behaviour to a professional and that is not what they want to do, tehy want to be able to keep on abusing. so that is why most warnings are adressed to teh mother.

how do you not get this?

Swipe left for the next trending thread