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 01:22

two women a week are murdered by their spouse

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

Dansmommy lots of women are frightened to leave the abuser. It's a fact that most women are murdered as they try to leave their abuser, [two women a week are murdered]

I don't see what the harm would be in giving SS more power to focus on the behaviour of the abuser rather than the mother, in a case like this

OP posts:
Saltatrix · 21/12/2010 01:20

He is seen as responsible hence why he is on bail and not released. I don't know the details of the thread however so correct me if I am wrong.

The SS are only looking at the potential for harm to the children they are not trying to punish people they are trying to protect. Obviously there is a loose cannon abuser around and that's not safe for the children. Better safe than sorry.

Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:18

But why was she still living there santas?

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:17

It is nothing to do with believeing the woman at all. There is far more to making a DV case than there is to making a child welfare case - and rightly so, if someone screams abuse they can take it back for themselves, for a variety of reasons - and that is their right. However they cannot take it back for the dc - because it is the right of the dc to be protected, regardless of any sweet-talk or promises or anything else that may happen in a dv case!

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:17

believe me, if he is tehre when SS arrive. he will be told that if he is violent again his children will be removed.

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:16

Many people don't believe an abused child, including the mother. Either through stupidity or wilful refusal to see what is happening in their own home, and with members of their own family.
Often the child feels that it is their fault that they are physically, emotionally or/and sexually abused because the adults in their lives are either the abusers or the deniers.

Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:16

"SantasSackura Tue 21-Dec-10 01:09:37
I think SS should be given power to collaborate with the police in order to remove the abuser from the home."

I do agree with this. Though I think in practice it would be tricky.

I think the problem here is that lots of different points have been lumped together.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:16

they are both responsible santa, but as he is teh abuser, he cannot leave with teh children and SS have no authority to make him leave his home.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:14

In the thread I read, the woman had called the police more than once on her partner and he was bailed immediately, only to beat her up again.
The police and SS came to her house and saw the bruises on her face
How is it possible that she is responsible for the children's welfare and he isn't??

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:14

woman.

sorry for my shitty typing tonight.

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:14

Because the onus of proof is different. The amount of evidence required to convict someone and remove them from their (own) home is huge. A large amount of evidence built up over a long time.

However it is enough for a family court or a care review to have the abused's say so. If a parent admits they are being abused and gives details of this affecting the dc then SS have enough evidence to try and protect the dc whereas a lot more is needed to take somene away from a home - that they may even own!

The fact is that the law is set up to protect dc with a lot less evidence than is required to protect an adult. Strange as it may seem this is right.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:13

santasackura, if a women wont press cahrges then tehre is no case to investigate.

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

So it all comes down to the fact that nobody believes women, just like in rape cases.
SHe has to be half-dead before any action will be taken

OP posts:
Saltatrix · 21/12/2010 01:11

SS don't have power over adults, they only see a situation where a child/children are in danger and must be kept safe (of course this process sometimes goes wrong)

The point here is that if someone is in an abusive relationship and they have children it is their duty as parents to keep their children safe from the abusive one if that means calling the police or getting out of there then so be it.

SS focus is on the children

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:11

You need evidence to arrest someone, don't you?
If the victim of DV won't back a case, or withdraws the accusation from fear or misguided belief that the aggressor will change, there isn't enough justification to arrest someone.
SS do sometimes do Place Of safety removals whilst accompanied by the police in case of assault or attempts to block their removal of the child/ren.
If the aggressor attacks them, they will prosecute.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:10

because teh abuser doesn't stick around to be threatened do they?? would you sit in to be told you are a violent abuser? if you are that sort of person you aren't going to take that are you? you probably know your temper will flare and you will prove yourself teh thug that you are, not good when most abuser pride themselves on being mr niceguy to the general public.

Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:10

Goblinchild, I agree, I was just trying to stick with the OPs original wording.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 01:10

"Then why don't SS and the police aim to protect the chidren by using their power to remove, arrest and jail the father?"

Because they can't- SS can't. The police can. The police don't remove the children. You keep grouping the police and SS together- they have completely different remits.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:09

I think SS should be given power to collaborate with the police in order to remove the abuser from the home.

WHy do they not have this power?

OP posts:
Dansmommy · 21/12/2010 01:09

Well I agree, I think child abusers should be locked up and the key thrown away, but the sad fact is that many women allow these men back into the home. By doing this they are failing their children. If SS did not remove the children they'd be failing them too.

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:07

'you must leave/make them leave. If you choose not to do this, you are facilitating abuse, and yes, for that you should be 'punished'.'

It's not exactly punished though, more replaced. Or overruled. If you have a duty of care to the child/ren and you are not carrying that out, SS step in to provide that duty of care.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:07

Why do they threaten the mother, when they know the father is the abuser?
FOrget about getting the mother to leave, just arrest the father ASAP, and no pussyfooting around

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:05

Then why don't SS and the police aim to protect the chidren by using their power to remove, arrest and jail the father?

OP posts:
WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:05

ah, now the point that the abuser has to be left by the abused rather than being removed, that I can undewrstand - although that is true regardless of dc being involved.

However this is a problem with proof of an action which occurs behind closed doors and woul, possibly, have a massive affect on the accused life - even if it were not true! I have no idea how you get around that one but it is still a police issue and not an ss one.

Swipe left for the next trending thread