Social Services punish mothers for DV

Is it the case that if a man abuses a cat he is prosecuted? The case doesn't rely on the cat pressing charges or giving evidence against the abuser. Why doesn't the same happen if a man abuses a woman? As santasakura and dittany have said, why can't the man be prosecuted if the situation is grave enough to remove the children? Why is it acceptable to allow the abuse to continue and for the children to be removed?

"You think children from happy homes would have good outcomes in the care system Tethers, because I think you are mistaken."

This is not what I said dittany- it is impossible to know whether the terrible outcomes for children in care are due solely to the care system or solely to the abuse they have suffered or (more likely) a combination of both unless you take children from happy, loving, stable homes and place them in care and measure the results. This is obviously not an option.

To assume that the poor outcomes are due solely to the care system, ignoring the circumstances that led to being in care -as you were- is naive.

Not all care is substandard, in fact most of it is exceptional. These children arrive damaged - by abuse, substance abuse of their parents or lack of care by those parents, that includes remaining in an abusive household

In my experience, SS do their upmost to keep children with their parents. If either parent refuses to do the best for their children, then those parents should not be parenting them

I have a friend that will not leave an abusive relationship. Her children from her first marriage have all moved out and will no longer speak to her. She owns the house, he has no stake in it. She earns a fantastic wage (he unemployed) Neighbours constantly call the police but she will not press charges. He left her for 3 months, she begged him to come back. Friends are now giving up on her. Her children are damaged - they treat her with no respect (all under 8 years old) She will not leave him. If SS were to take her children, I would think it was the right thing

Also it's a shame that there are "sides" here - I mean no-one on this thread seriously thinks that anyone else on the thread wants children left in danger, to say otherwise is just a bit silly TBH.

It's a question of how things are - how things could be improved (some great ideas earlier) - and for me the fact that when you think about it logically, what happens at the moment is completely bloody ridiculous.

Is it really an absolute certainty that a child will be worse off in a home where the mother is being abused and keeps it away from the child as much as she can, than in care, removed from home and non abusive mother? I don't see how that can be a certainty, I really don't.

I still think that many of us are talking about different situations. The OP was about a situation where a woman is being abused by her partner, the children are not being abused, the woman wants out. It isn't about children being directly abused themselves, or situations where both parents are abusing each other. Or about cases where women won't leave even after being given the utmost support and assistance. I really think that many of us are talking at cross purposes.

From a theoretical/logical perspective, it makes no sense that some members of a family can be removed and not others. It really makes no sense. If our society was being redone from scratch the law would not put the onus on victims to bear responsibility and have their lives utterly disrupted while the criminal is free to continue as normal.

x post eric.

"I remain to be convinced that the massive emotional damage from being taken away from a parent is less than the damage caused by being raised in an abusive home. Children in care have the worst outcomes of all."

I have long ago left the the thread, but had to come back on. Am truly, truly shocked by that, dittany.

Children in care have the worst outcomes of all; this is partly because they have been removed from abuse. SS don't go around plucking happy children from stable homes and messing them up. The care system is woefully inadequate and needs reform, but to say that children in care have worse outcomes purely because they are in care and to ignore the reason they are there as a factor is naive at best.

This whole thread has been based on the premise that SS remove children as a punitive measure. It's a premise which is deeply, deeply flawed.

I'm sure I will be told that I have no right to post now, and that this is not what the thread is about, but I have been staggered by some of the views on this thread. Staggered.

I'm sorry Fifi, I remain to be convinced that the massive emotional damage from being taken away from a parent is less than the damage caused by being raised in an abusive home. Children in care have the worst outcomes of all.

well that just betrays your ignorance I'm afraid and undermines your credibility.

BTW dittany I was trying to be helpful to those people who maybe didn't understand the full picture of the feminist model of DV - 'like we didn't already' (understand)

I was not being patronising.

I do think however there is a high degree of naivety amongst some on what CAN be done currently.

I won't bother posting again.

Dittany - in response to your post to me.

Yes I understand DV from a feminist perspective. However where a woman does not protect her child, or is unable to then the welfare of the child must come first.

I don't see how that is complicated to be honest. Yes support women to leave but if they return or don't leave what other choice is there for social services if they children are at risk?

I also believe the feminist perspective on DV has had a massive influence on services in recent years and quite rightly. There is clearly a long long way to go and those working in the area can only operate with facilities and resources as they stand.

It's because all of our laws are based on ownership and property and things.

If they were being written now from scratch it would be perfectly obvious that the way it works at the moment is completely illogical.

As to why the children are removed and not the abuser, it's because the state cannot remove mentally competent adults from their homes unless they have committed a crime. The state cannot forcibily remove a (childfree) victim of DV from her abuser if she won't go because the state recognises that it is her choice to stay: the state also recognises that children are not able to choose for themselves whether to go or stay and, where they are in danger and unprotected, the state will act to protect them.
But the state does have the power to remove an abuser from the home and keep him out as long as the abuse victim reports the abuse. It's perfectly possible to get injunctions, occupation orders etc to keep a violent man out of his former home and have him arrested if he comes within 50 yards of it. It's just that this can't be done without the consent of the victim.

My post was only semi sarcastic. Where is the logic in reinforcing the unfair power (financial and otherwise) dynamic? Oh....

There should be hostels for abusers, not the abused. Somewhere in the Outer Hebrides.

To my mind it is not logical that in a household where abuse is occurring, it is possible to remove the children but not the abuser. They are all people, and yet for some reason some people can be taken out and others can't.

I mean it's simply not logical, it's counter-intuitive. That surely isn't the way it ought to be. What it says is that the abuser has more rights than the victim (usually the mother) and the children put together. He has the right to stay in his home, to continue abusing, to almost certainly face no punishment or consequences. (Although of course he may well not want to lose hid partner/children, in reality, despite what he does). But overall the victims are the one who are removed from their homes and in the case of children their schools, have their lives disrupted, away from extended family and their friends etc when they have done nothing wrong. it just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree that harsher sentancing for those who have been bought to court for domestic abuse is a must.

if women saw that complaining about abuse actually got a lengthy sentance then it would be more worth the risk. because let us not be under any illusion here, a phone call to the police is an invitation for a beating.
as is a visit from SS, it is assumed that you have not done your job properly and have somehow "grassed" your abuser.
it is dangerous for a woman to report her abuse. if she could trust that the police would act (police were called numerous times in my relastionship and the responses from the officers were varied. I actually overheard one officer being very nict to xp and telling him "its ok mate, we can tell she's a nutjob. just go and get yourself calm then get your kids out of there" )

if she could feel safe in the knowledge that he would not be released on bail without an alternative address to go to, that they would get speedy court dates, that custodial sentances were issued, that breaches of injunctions were upheld....basically if the legal system upheld the laws that are already in place, THEN women would feel more at ease to report.

the ability to report would drastically reduce the time women spent with an abuser and tehrefore reduce the impact of abuse on teh children.

the removal of children is, imo, a red herring. If a mother refuses to keep her child safe then SS have no option. but if the routes to escape were clearer and less dangerous then far fewer women would reach that point.