Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Social Services punish mothers for DV

340 replies

SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 00:18

Why do they do this?
Why is it that no-one is under any obligation to keep the abuser away from the mother, and yet the mother has a responsibility to keep her children away from the abuser?
The very fact that the authorities need the mother to "prove" she is taking steps to keep the children save show that they believe the husband is abusive/violent. ANd yet it's not him who is hounded or punished.
I'm so Angry at hearing women whose partners are given bail after committing some atrocity against their wife or children, only to do it again as soon as they get back home, and for the mother to be told she is endangering her children.
The law is so backward Sad
Surely if the man is known to be abusive, you take steps to remove him from the home????

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:27

no, what is patronising is your spiel making out that I want to put the mother above the children

"putting the mother second (where she should be) ..."

It is not the point of the thread

Can you answer scallops question, because that is the root of the problem I am talking about

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:26

I don't know why the evidence is not used to prosecute- this is a police matter, not SS. This was the crux of the thread.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:24

Santa, I have been on this thread from the beginning.

I have answered points as they have arisen.

I don't think it's your place to tell me whether or not I am welcome to 'add my bit', sorry- v v patronising.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:24

tethers, you've completely missed the point .
Can you answer scallop's question?

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:23

Putting the mother second (where she should be) does not involve leaving children in a potentially abusive situation. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is certainly not to risk children's safety. They must come first. Always.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:22

yes mothers do abuse children, but when you think about how much time mothers spend with children compared to fathers, it throws a different light on the issue, but I digress...

This is not the point of the thread, tethers. You're welcome to add your bit, of course, I just don't want you thinking that that is what the thread is about. The thread is about the last 5 posts on here

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:21

The tragedy is that children still love their abusers as a parent, and that this is often a huge factor in the emotional damage they suffer by being taken into care. They are not able to direct the anger they feel at the abuse towards their abuser, so they direct it towards the care system.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:19

I'm talking about their father, ISNT(in 9 out of 10 cases- with some of the children I work with, the mother was the abuser). Sorry, should have made that clear. My point was that a child's desire to return home is not indicative of there being no abuse.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:18

I would like an answer to that question Scallops...

But I reckon it will be down to: this department, and this bit of red tape, and person A needs to give the nod to person B and form F needs to be filled first and blah blah...

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:17

NO, I think you've nailed it ISNT Sad and you've got to the root of what has been bothering me

OP posts:
scallopsrgreat · 21/12/2010 13:16

Can I ask a question as someone who is unfamiliar with these types of situations.

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?

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

tethers but why should the mother come last?

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

I think I must be missing something here.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

"I work with children in care. Most of them would return to their abuser in a heartbeat"

But if their mothers haven't abused them then why not? This idea that women who are attacked by men are automatically child abusers is odd.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:13

I am not sure that it is fair to say that women who are attacked by men are child abusers. I think that is a very emotive term and to take a woman in that situation, and remove her children because she is abusing them is counter-intuitive. What is wrong with removing the person causing the problems ie the man? Or assisting the family in every way possible to get away?

At the moment it sounds like if a woman reports difficulties she is more often than not presented with this threat of removal of the children. SS have the welfare of the children as their priority but surely that doesn't mean that the welfare of everyone else is completely overlooked? The message keeps coming again and again that SS only care about the children, I have experienced that myself, it's quite a chilling message.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:11

I find it sort of offensive that you think I think the woman comes first. It is not the point I'm making, sorry

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:10

tethers I don't think anyone on the thread is underestimating how complicated it is, least of all dittany. This is not about putting the welfare of the mother above the children. It's about comparing the treatment of the father-abuser and the victim-mother and highlighting the gross discrepancies in the what's expected of them both

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:09

But in this situation, the woman does not come first. I'm sorry, but she doesn't- and nor should she.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:08

Snorbs Thank you for your input, although your case was slightly different, because you weren't fearful for your life in the way victims of domestic violence are. And it's not in their head either: Women are most frequently murdered as they try to leave their abusive spouse, so it seems particularly cruel to tell such women that they're going to lose her kids, as opposed to telling them they will never have to see their abuser ever again IYSWIM

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:04

"It's funny how people talk about the emotional abuse of being in a DV home but ignore the massive emotional harm that children experience when they are taken into care away from their families."

I work with children in care. Most of them would return to their abuser in a heartbeat- in fact it is their dearest wish. The emotional harm is done by the abuser, not the process of taking them into care. I am not saying that it doesn't harm children to be removed from their families, of course it does- but the situation wrt emotional damage is far, far more complicated than you imply.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:00

"Women don't "choose" to be in DV situations - abusers target women and won't let them go. That's feminism 101 and if you don't know that maybe you need to actually educate yourselves on domestic violence and the power dynamics involved. Women do actually fear for their lives and theirs and their children's safety when leaving a violent man. "

dittany, from a CP POV, it actually doesn't matter if a woman has 'chosen' to be in a DV situation or not. If children are in an abusive situation, they need to be removed.

Outcomes for children in care are dire, statistically. It is not necessarily the care system which causes this, though; children in care rarely come from stable beginnings. Yes, care should be (and is IME) a last resort- but it is essential in order to keep children safe.

Women need to be better supported in order to escape DV situations, but this potentially requires risking children's safety during the process.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:00

OH, that case ISNT... there are no words left on the planet to describe that case

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 12:59

confuddled I can see by the title of this thread that you have jumped to defend SS, and maybe I should have phrased it differently, because really the issue here is not SS, it's mothers who are victims of DV, and how the "system" (SS? The Police? ) appears to hold mothers responsible for children in a way they do not hold the father responsible...
And the reason I find it so ridiculous is because when it comes to a father claiming "rights" suddenly the system rallies around him.

OP posts:
ISNT · 21/12/2010 12:48

Sorry that doesn't read right. The father had the children, the mother was sent to prison.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 12:47

confuddled it must be the case that if the police have evidence etc they can prosecute even without the victim, otherwise it would mean that DV is treated differently to other crimes.

When you talk about DV in this instance presumably you mean ongoing DV? I mean, if my DH came home now and punched me in the face out of the blue, then I'm not abusing my children, surely?

I've just remembered that recent case which I think highlights sakura's original point. Where the woman was experiencing DV and rape, and the children had witnessed it. The husband had had a restraining order against him which he had broken. The woman went to the police and told them about it, the prosecution started to happen, she lost her nerve and withdrew her allegations. At that point she was sent to prison and the children had the children. He kept the children even though the arrangement was that they should go to relatives of the mother. The whole thing was mind boggling, and illustrates teh sort of thing that sakura was getting at.