Social Services punish mothers for DV

Sakura I would suspect that evidence to remove a child does not require the parents statements or support.

Removal and conviction of an abusing partner can occur without the support of a victim but in reality the cases need the victims cooperation. SS cannot stop women (or men) from taking their abuser back. But they are able to stand in for children and protect them from the choices their parents make.

Unless of course you're doing the usual BS of blaming women who have been terrorised and controlled by men who sometimes fight back.

Ummmm....no. But believe that if it fits your agenda

The discussion was around SS not offering adequate support to victims of DV. I gave an example where support was offered to both victims/perpetrators. I am bored now....

Oh fuck it Dittany, you are a broken record!

From the OED - Devious adjective
1 showing a skilful use of underhand tactics to achieve goals:

Pretty much sums up the mindset of women who continue to see abusive men in secret when they have been told that this jeopardises the safety of their children.

FWIW yes I did attend the CP conferences and I did not recommend registration. This was prior to the extent of the DV being known. No I did not submit anything to court in the care proceedings as I was there to advocate for and support her. Which I did, very well.

If you know enough about a case to remove a baby from its mother, then you know enough about a case to jail the abuser

no you don't

THAT is my point. The legal system insists on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Child protection is a different approach completely. If SWs and courts needed proof beyond reasonable doubt then no children would ever be removed from abusive homes. That's the basic point that you are missing. Are you suggesting a change in the legal system to remove the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt? Seriously?

Dittany, she was a victim. He was emotionally abusive and physically abusive. She was emotionally vulnerable. She also happened to be physically abusive herself. The example is completely relevant. The example was of how SS offered support and interventions and she still chose to find ways to see her abusive partner and keep it from the suthorities, despite knowing that it might lead to the child being removed.

1- because there was no evidence. We know she hefted a glass ashtray at his head with the baby in the room because she told us so. If he and she deny it to the police (which they did) then the police cannot press charges. Nobody else saw it. This is quite a basic point that you are missing.

2- I don't despise her, not at all. If I despised her I would be shit at my job, which I'm not.

3- history of care is only relevant as far as it hints to poor boundaries and lack of basic parenting skills which abused children often grow up to have. After all, children only come into care after experiencing abuse.

4- it was reciprocal. Fuck sake Dittany are you so blinkered that you can't conceive of a female abuser? Or a mutually abusive relationship? She battered him more often than he assaulted her. You may not like this, maybe it doesn't fit your worldview, but it's true.

5- no, I was supporting her. Not involved in removing her child.

Once again, stop talking about deceit. If the authorities aren't supporting abused women (which they aren't on the whole) then women have to do what is best for themselves and their children without reference to people who are working to undermine them.

Oh Dittany you are quite blinkered. I used the word devious and I stick by that. I'll give you an example shall I? Young mum, history of care. Slightly older boyfriend. Substance misuse. Baby. DV (reciprocal). Interventions offered to both parents, referral to living without violence programmes, referral to substance misuse services, enhanced health visitor service, counselling, etc etc. DV did not stop. Baby was to remain with mum, so dad was made to leave family home. Mum continued to see him as 'she loved him' and although it was an abusive violent relationship and was potentially damaging the baby (emotionally and physically) it was more important to her to keep her relationship. She would take the baby out and leave it with friends so she could go off and see him. She was devious. Baby was removed in the end. I was personally involved in supporting her and saw her all the way through it. She CHOSE her relationship over her child's welbeing. I can understand why and how that happens, but the facts remain.

Unfortunately domestic is so complex it is hard to have a catch all aproach.

I think there is far more sensitivity to it under the law and amongst police and other agencies now then ever but still room for improvement.

The argument that the children MUST come first is actually in law, not just a preference, it is a guiding principle of any agency working with families - so there isn't the space often to consider the other options. FWIW - every dv situation I have seen professionally, all of the agencies involved have worked very hard to protect the women and the children. In probation work for instance there is usually a strong partnership with women's aid who work with the victim while the probation officer works with the abuser to address his behaviour and protect the victim from harm.

It is naive however to think that some women don't mislead or deceive the authorites - some do. Yes we know this is due to their fear, their manipulation etc but as stated some women will go back to the men.

If anyone is interested in understanding dv then google Duluth model - they researched it and set the bar in terms of understanding abuse in the context of power and control of women in a patriarchy if you like. Really useful stuff.