Social Services punish mothers for DV

what this also does not need is people burying their heads in the sand about occasional complicity and poor behaviour/choices by women. simply by token of having a vagina, does not life you beyond reproach. i/e Baby P's mother....... the mother who set up the kidnapping of her daughter..

and don't turn on me as a woman hater/misogynist tool of the patriarchy, i am trying to see things from both sides, whilst i acknowledge abusers aere always in the wrong, it is not unknown for women to occasionally be complicit in abuse of hteir children, either by act or omission

You know what
I have read the thread and you really, really don't get it

The abuser needs to be removed and you don't care how....well if the law cannot remove the abuser then the victim needs to remove the abuser with the support of the law. If the victim does not do that then the law cannot remove him. PROOF is needed.

It simply cannot be that you know enough about a case to remove the baby from the mother, but cannot remove the abuser

But it is. I have explained why. In CP cases we listen to what people say, observe and make conclusions. We look at childrens' behaviour and draw inferences. We build a picture of abuse with information from various sources. We take expert witness views on potential future abuse. In a court of law you need proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is much that is wrong and sexist within the judicial system but the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a pretty basic and inalienable one. Do you really propose we remove it, as a society? Can you imagine how that would look? What would happen?

The changes need to come in the way that abusive men are treated by the criminal justice system. Harsher punishments, effective restraining orders etc. The law is often an ass and on the abuser's side. No doubt there. But to convict someone of a crime you need evidence.

the lady eric described was no longer in an impossible situation (if i read correctly) she and her baby had been removed from the abuser but she decieved those who were supporting her so that she could return to her abuser.

she had the ability to be free of her abuser but she lied so that she coudl see them.

It is right and proper that we understand and sympathise with why she felt that she had to be with the man that had abused her, but to excuse or ignore that fact woulf be wrong.

I don't think that arguing over the language used is helpfull. there may have been less emotive words available but i don't think that Devious was wrong.

Uuuuggghghghg

Because they are an abuser

I am talking about the short term. Of course with intervention and support an abuser can change their behaviour - but really, how many do? And would you recommend a woman stays with an abusive man while he goes through this process? No? So why should we expect children to do so?

Man beats up his partner regularly in front of kids. Social worker/police officer points out this is damaging to woman and children. Man realises error of his ways and stops. Yeah.......fucking whatever. I live in the real world and in the real world abusers don't stop abusing on a dime.

the abuser does absolutely have a duty not to abuse and therefore endanger his children.
but if he fails in that role then the other parent must take steps to safeguard the child.
if they too fail SS step in.

it is not about victimising women,or allowing men to abuse without guilt, it is about safeguarding children.

Yes Gigi

You quite forget that it is not the abused woman who is endangering her child, it is the abuser

Woman is being abused

by extension child is being abused

Parents must protect child from abuse

Abuser is not capable of doing so obviously

Non abuser OR resident parent must take steps to protect children. This can include ending the abusive relationship, or undertaking work to address her own issues, whatever is appropriate. This is the job of the parents. If they cannot or will not do that then SS step in and remove child. This is completely right, as long as the parents are given the right support and interventions to make the changes in the first place before removal, if that is safe for the DCs.

Applauds Gigantaur.

Sakura - it is not the woman endangering her child but the abuser.

if that is the case then could you explain to me how come Mental health services are often faced with charges when a patient kills? why is it that the police are held accountable when someone who is known to them kills someone?

because they have a duty of care.

A mother has a duty to protect her child. if she fails to protect the child then she is enabling them to be abused.

eric, give up now it is a pointless battle.

Fifi, if you understand domestic violence through a feminist lens why on earth are you supporting social services removing children from a woman who hasn't been able to escape from her abuser.

Why should we look at it through any "lens"? why not look at the facts and realities of the case? why does everything have to be scewed with backdrop of "she has a vagina and therefore must be right"?

I have been on both sides of the fence. I can tell you that there are times when a child does need to be removed from a mother because she is incapable of ending the violant relationship. There are times when no amount of support, no amount of facilities available will coax the woman to leave.
yes i understand that this will be down to years of manipulation and abuse, often spaning further back than the actual relatsionship.
I think that that is why the "history of care" is relevant in erics scenario.

And to describe a woman who has mislead those supporting her because she knows what she is doing is wrong, simply to do the very thing she is being supported not to do...is devious.

YAWN

Blinkered, blinkered woman.