Social Services punish mothers for DV

SantasSackura, yes you're right in that I wasn't in fear of my life. That wasn't my point.

You called for cooperation between SS and the police in removing abusers from homes. I gave my experiences of SS and the police working together in a child protection case conference as well as an anecdote from a SW I got to know quite well that SS can and does help get abusers out of homes.

Or, to put it another way, you called for something that - in my experience at least - could and/or should already be happening.

Late to the thread but there are a few things I need to comment on -

'Social services don't really give a shit about domestic violence or its effects on families.'

Well Dittany, that's bullshit. Pure offensive bullshit. Local authority budgets for SS are tiny and inadequate and being cut every year. Don't you think social workers are desperate for adequate support for victims of DV, rape, trafficking etc? there isn't the money

WHy don't SS assist in that way? Why do they leave all the donkey work to charities?

• MONEY

I would have thought a better solution would be to put the part of the family unit that is not abusive first - so in these situations the mother and the children - and assist them in every way possible to get away

• Believe me, they do. Mothers (and it usually is) are given chance after chance to disentangle from abusive men, and given what limited support that SS can give. If we had adequate budgets we could do so much better. There are isolated cases (too many) like one described above where institutional sexism is clear, from social workers through police to judge, but generally the attitude is to offer support before 'punishment' even going too far at times.

Does there have to be evidence of DV to remove children from the home?

If so, why is that evidence not used to remove the abuser and charge them rather than remove the children?

• The evidence is different. What the CPS would require to bring a case would be far more than what SS require. We do not discount hearsay, retracted statements etc, when the whole picture points to abuse. Police/CPS need concrete evidence.

So for example, if it was down to SS, they would have the abuser removed from the home, but they simply don't have the authority?

• It makes much more sense that if social services has the level of evidence needed to take kids into care, then they can make the occupation order on behalf of the children.

This would not work! You'd be amazed how devious abused women can be in making contact with their abuser, and facilitating contact between children and abusers. The woman, as resident parent, needs to acknowledge the harm that is being done to her children and take steps off her own back to protect them. Women aren't children, they are adults with agency over their own choices.

Often, contact is continued with the abusive parent because the child, despite the abuse, loves the parent. Removing them forcibly from their lives could constitute a bereavement, causing even more emotional damage. Controlled, safe contact is therefore more in the child's interest. Courts however, don't always seem to get the hang of the "safe, controlled" bit. It's also quite difficult to judge on behalf of a young child whether they want contact or not.

The problem with SS applying for occupation orders without the consent of the mother is that the order is highly unlikely to be effective without her cooperation. She needs to want the Order otherwise she will not report its breech. The first the authorities will know about the violent partner being in the home is when the non-violent partner is attacked, by which point it is too late to protect the children from witnessing further violence.

Yes, women should be offered every support to escape violence, but unfortunately, as I frequently see in my line of work, there are mothers who repeatedly place their children in danger by refusing to acknowledge that they are at risk, and by actively working against the authorities who are trying to protect them. Sometimes this is through fear, but other times it is because they prioritise their relationship above their children. If this is the case, where neither parent will protect the child, then they may need to be removed as a last resort.

If a solution is to change the law so that Social Services could apply for an occupation order if the mother doesn't, how hard are Social Services departments lobbying central government for such a change in the law? Or for more domestic violence powers in general, for that matter?

ISNT-criminal law requires a higher burden of proof because the potential punishment is more severe (although I have to agree that the punishment for domestic abusers are not heavy enough in many cases). If a Defendant is found guilty of assault (of whatever kind) s/he can be deprived of their liberty.

In actual fact the civil law provides quite an easy way to remove an abuser from the joint home-the victim can apply to a civil court for an emergency occupation and non-molestation order. That can be enforced immediately and granted on the evidence of the victim only. The abuser would be excluded from the home. There would then be a return date when the abuser could be legally represented adn evidence from him/her heard and the matter be decided on a more permanant basis. The problem is that this of course requres the victim to act and give evidence which, for a number of reasons she may not want or be able to do.

I actually think nothing will change until the penalties do. If abusers started being given immediate custodial sentences after the first offence this would give the victims at least some time to receive counselling, get protective measures in place etc, and then be in a place where they would not want to reconcile with the abuser when he got out. I agree that if s/he receives a non-custodial sentence then nothing much is likely to change.

I don't think it would go down like a lead balloon if it was explained that the occupation order step could reduce the number of cases of children removed from their homes/family.

I agree though that it is up to the Government to change the law. Social Services can only walk with the options that are available to them.

Essentially, we are asking women, who may not have the education/bravery/English language skills/safety and freedom/understanding to go through the process of gaining an occupation order, and then making sure that occupation order is enforced by informing the police if the abuser turns up.

It makes much more sense that if social services has the level of evidence needed to take kids into care, then they can make the occupation order on behalf of the children. They can then make sure that order is enforced from talking to the kids and/or through speaking to neighbours and the school.

If the order is broken and the abuser returns, then rather than taking the kids off the mother and putting them in care, the abuser could simply be removed and sent to prison for breaking the law as he refused to obey the court's occupation order.

I think if social services COULD apply for such orders they would. However it is up to government to change the law not local authorities. Such powers would also be useful where children are being abused, remove the abuser, not the abused. However the likelihood of such power being granted to them is probably nil.

Some people think social workers have too much power as it is so giving them more will go down like a lead balloon.

Going out for a bit

The answer to this is that social services should be able to apply for occupation orders on behalf of children. This doesn't require the same level of evidence as a DV conviction as it is not a criminal case.

Social Services should apply for occupation orders on behalf of the children, so that the non-abusive parent and the child stay in the house. The abusive parent is removed. If he breaks the occupation order by returning, he has broken the law and can be charged with that.

If SS really wanted to do what was in the best interests of children, it would gain the right to apply for occupation orders. It is clearly in the children's interest to stay in the home, keep attending the same school which may be their only stability, and remove the abuser from the home. This is a far better option that the upheaval of moving kids into care.

If they have enough evidence to put kids into care, then they have enough evidence for an occupation order. We need to change the law.

You will see that there are remedies in law to exclude the man from the house - molestation and occupation orders. They can be effective. The woman has to apply for these, not social services.

The aim is not to remove the children but they would be removed if seen to be at risk. That decision would overide any attempts at work with the family group but that doesn't mean to say the children would be removed, end of.

I have worked with many women who have left but many who have chosen to stay with the abuser. In the last situation, you have to do what is best for the children.

It isn't fair to women overall but the system is better than it was so at least some progress has been made.

It seems wrong that the weight of evidence to remove children is different to the weight of evidence to remove an adult.

My guess would be that it comes back to our laws being based around property - so removing children from their home is easier as they don't own it. Taking someone from property that they have a legal right to is a different kettle of fish.

But when you look at it in the cold light of day, it's entirely illogical.

rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/civil.pdf

This document explains some of the options available under the civil law where the burden of proof isn't has high as in criminal cases.

tethers indicated that policies were other than you describe.

I honestly don't see why the non-abusive section of the family can't be helped as a group. The idea that the children must be removed even if the mother is desperate to go too is wrong.

I wonder if we are talking about a range of different situations.

Sakura's OP was talking about quite specific situations, where the woman has done everything she can, brought prosecutions and so on, and men are bailed or released and return, and the women are held responsible.

Santa and ISNT - you are right, the authoriies would like to remove the abuser most of the time but if there isn't the evidence for whatever reason in the criminal sense or to get a civil order in place, they can't. SS have no power to remove adults, only children.

Don't worry I'm not offended. I am an ex probation officer and have managed many cases where DV is involved and sat on many of the multi agency DV panels with other agencies.

The situation is far from perfect but it is better than it was, The use of restraining orders and the like are helpful and more recent tools that can be put into place. Trouble is DV is so endemic that there is really so many complexities for each case.

fifi it doesn't seem right that the weight of evidence needed to remove children from their home (possibly permanently) is different to the weight of evidence required to remove the abuser.