Social Services punish mothers for DV

ISNT - in your last post you describe a scenario where there is a court order in place, the other is living away from the abuser and has access to benefits to live day to day........If that is sustained most social workers would not WANT her to be separate from the kids IME.

Despite what most people think - social workers don't particularly enjoy taking kids into care and it is usually the last resort. However the law is clear that the welfare of the children comes first in any scenario.

It is better if the abuser is removed BUT if he isn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence or charges being dropped - how can he be?

Therefore you are left to work with the woman to try and empower her to leave - why should she leave her home and posessions etc - it's not an umcomplicated decision. If she stays for whatever reason and you believe the children are at risk then decisions will be made to protect them and it MIGHT mean removing them.

All scenarios like this are complex and dependent upon various factors - hence various organisations trying to work together to achieve the best outcomes.

SS don't leave this work to charities either.There are service level agreements between police, probation, social services, education and women's aid in most authorities which is a recognition of the complexity of the issues in DV cases.

""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 / get the man away / improve their lives / access counselling / move to a new area / obtain non-molestation orders / whatever they need to do. That would be far more satisfactory surely."

You see, I don't think it would, ISNT; not from a CP POV, anyway. What you suggest would not guarantee children's safety. All of those things take place once the children are removed with a view to placing the children back home, but those steps need to be taken whilst the children are safe- the only way to ensure this is to take them into care. It is sad, but I can't see that there is another way which doesn't increase the risk to the children's safety."

Right so saying, here's a safe house, well away from him, here's access to some money to get you on your feet, this is where the children will go to school, here is a non-molestation order, if he comes near you he will go to prison, is putting the children in danger? How?

Why is it not safe for children to be with their mother in a place that is well away from the abuser??? Why must the children be taken into care - with a view to returning them to the family home where the man is presumably still living? I don't get it.

fifi why not remove the man?

There seems to be a mindset that if a man is beating the crap out of his partner, it's down to her to organise everything and raise the money etc and leave the family home with them, and he doesn't have to do anything. Stays at home, no danger of prosecution, no threats of anything. Meanwhile the mother is being threatened with having her children taken away.

It all seems counter-intuitive. It does seem that the mother is being blamed for something that the father is doing.

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

That is not correct in the slightest.

Where possible the authorities work with the mother and the child. Where there is clear evidence of DV and the woman can't or won't leave her partner, the children COULD be removed - depends on what the level of violence is and the risk to the child.

"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 / get the man away / improve their lives / access counselling / move to a new area / obtain non-molestation orders / whatever they need to do. That would be far more satisfactory surely."

You see, I don't think it would, ISNT; not from a CP POV, anyway. What you suggest would not guarantee children's safety. All of those things take place once the children are removed with a view to placing the children back home, but those steps need to be taken whilst the children are safe- the only way to ensure this is to take them into care. It is sad, but I can't see that there is another way which doesn't increase the risk to the children's safety.

I don't see why there's got to be an either/or TBH. People are all important, why does anyone have to "come first", and at the moment it really does seem that the mother is left to "come last".

I wonder if we're all talking about different situations here.

Children in households where there is DV are seen as being at risk even if not directly victims themselves -this is because of the impact of DV on the children psychologically and emotionally. SS would want to remove a child from this situation if they felt the children couldn't be protected - not sure what's wrong with that tbh.

At the end of the day children can't protect themselves so might end up with a situation where SS remove children if the female in the household is still living with the male abuser. Not fair on the mother you might think but the welfare of the child is paramount and overides concerns about the woman.

Most areas have multi-agency domestic violence arrangments to try and manage these kind of situations. The decisions and outcomes are really more complex than what is suggested by the OP IME.

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 / get the man away / improve their lives / access counselling / move to a new area / obtain non-molestation orders / whatever they need to do. That would be far more satisfactory surely.

For the love of god- scallop's question was after my posts about putting the children first, which were in response to dittany's posts.

You are being quite controlling now. It's actually getting my goat.

tethers I read your posts in the light of others on the thread saying that a woman in a DV situation where she was being assaulted but not the children was committing child abuse IYSWIM.

The fact that people who hit children are child abusers is clear, obviously, but I didn't think that was the situation we were talking about. I thought it was to do with what happens when men commit DV against women.

scallops yes there does have to be evidence but the weight of evidence required to remove children is less than the weight of evidence required to prosecute for DV. So there can be enough evidence to take the children away but not to prosecute anyone. And when I put it like that it does sound really stupid.

My responses where entirely to dittany's last few posts, Santas- I am certainly not accusing you of anything.

"and I think it's dittany's first post on this thread on page one"

That's quite possible, but the solution is not to leave children in abusive situations in order to help the mother. That is all I'm saying. I have not seen one workable solution on this thread which does not relegate the children's needs below those of the mother.

I did answer scallops question- wow, Santas, you are being very hostile.

Look at your OP. I am entitled to question what an a solution may look like whereby the children are not relegated to second place. I have not accused you of anything.

I was answering dittany's points. Is that ok with you?