Social Services punish mothers for DV

Oh and yes, I will defend social workers because I've seen first hand what they go through and what they do. Maybe there are some bad ones but there are many more who put their heart and soul and every minute of their day into their job. I know someone who has 3 months of TOIL and AL to take in March because they don't get overtime. The same person has such a good reputation that their name only has to be mentioned in court and judges know they've got quality work in front of them.

Don't believe that all of them are bad or rubbish.

Both parents are being abusive, that's why the children will be removed. If the victim is not protecting their children then they're just as much an abuser as if they were beating them. That's why the person being abused is told to leave because you're more likely to get through to them than you are the abuser.

I apologise if that's harsh to some of the people who have told their story on here but some people who aren't in that situation need to hear it.

What does the none abusive parent get charged and given custodials for when a child dies of abuse? "Failure to Protect"

I've not heard about a law that makes it possible to prosecute in cases of DV, I'll check it out tonight though. If there is one I don't think it is being enforced because I'm still hearing many stories of people being told if they return to their abusive ex they will lose their children.

For what it's worth, there is contact and cooperation between SS and the police because both bodies have a responsibility to protect children from harm.

The first child protection case conference I had to attend because of the risks my DCs were facing had representatives from SS, the school, the police and some other local authority body (I forget exactly who). The police were only involved in the first case conference as, after that, it was clear that there was no need for their continuing presence. But that was the chair's decision, not the police's.

The social worker that was assigned to my DCs also told me that SS can and do assist victims of DV in getting the abusive partner to move out. It wasn't a factor in our case but it came up as part of a discussion we were having about what SS can do. I think it's covered by the Children's Act - Section 47 rings a bell. Apologies for the vagueness here but it's been a few years since I last had contact with SS and I've forgotten a lot of the fine detail.

One final thing - the events that triggered the need for the case conference did culminate in a (different) social worker calling me and telling me that if I didn't take my DCs full-time to protect them from my ex, they'd be going into care that day.

Although that was one of the scariest days of my life I didn't look at it that they were making threats as a means to try to punish me for my failure to shield my DCs from my ex's problems. They were stepping in at the last resort to protect my DCs from continuing harm. It gave me the kick up the arse I needed to realise that I should start taking control of the situation myself. And the SW we ended up with helped me enormously with that, too.

Thanks for the clarification bellsa.

For a successfull prosecution the CPS does not need the victim to give evidence in every case. It does, however, need evidence sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and as in most cases DV does not happen in front of witnesses other than the victim (and frequently young children, who it is obviously not appropriate to call) it is often the case that there is not sufficient evidence without the victim's testimony. This is different from most other cases, where there are often other witnesses unconnected with the Defendant and victim, or certainly less likely to be intimidated by him into not giving evidence.
There have been successful prosecutions where, for eg, the victim has been seen by officers to have visible injuries and has said to them that the partner has caused them. The CPS review every allegation of DV to see whether a prosection is possible without the victim's evidence.
There are 2 common problems in pursuing prosecutions without the victim. Firstly, if the partner claims he acted in self defence, and there are no other witnesses, and the victim won't give evidence, how do you disprove that he was? The claim of self defence is made a lot of cases. Secondly, there are some cases where the victim makes a retraction statement saying either she made it up or cannot now remember what happened, and this obviously makes a prosecution much more difficult. These statements have to be disclosed to the defence.
Of course there are many and complex reasons why a woman won't support a prosecution-I won't go through them here. The deceision regarding the children and whether they stay with the mother is a seperate one and is made by social services, independantly from the criminal case. However, I do think that whether the victim is supportive of a prosecution is relevant to the welfare of the children, particularly in a case where she is actively trying to derail a prosecution by making a statement saying her previous statement was untrue. If she is unsupportive of a prosecution and is not taking steps to protect the children from a violent situation then I am afraid that I do think someone else needs to step in to protect the children, because they cannot protect themselves. Obviously it goes without saying that she should then be given all the support possible to get out of the situation herself and care for the children.

If you haven't gone goblin - if there is evidence, why do they need the victim to go ahead? That isn't the case in other crimes I don't think. In some circs the victim can't complain or give evidence, and while it makes things more difficult, prosecutions happen. It seems really strange if it's different for DV.

Sakura I know what you mean. It isn't logical, it doesn't make sense.

The authorities accept that one partner (usually the man) is violent, to the extent that they are prepared to threaten the mother (the person without any power in the situation) with removal of her children. But they are not prepared to accept it enough to actually do anything about the man. It doesn't make sense.

There also seems to be a disconnect that I have read about on some threads, where women and children leave due to violence and are assisted by the authorities in doing so, but then when it comes to contact the authorities push for the father to have lots of contact. It's been a theme on a few threads on here.

I do think that your point about the current set-up putting all of the responsibility for children on women and affording them less rights is correct (sometimes). A lot of people have very sexist mindsets (even if they don't realise it) and all of this is to do with people and the judgements they make.

There was a beermat campaign in North Yorkshire, and I think in one other county.
Sackura, I wasn't saying that you shouldn't target the abuser, just that with the law as I believe it stood required evidence rather than unsupported accusation, and that if the accusation was withdrawn, the case collapsed.

I'm sorry that you see me as being on the opposite side to you, protecting the abuser, but I still feel that the children should be the priority. So as we may just end up in an argument rather than a debate, I'm going to leave the thread.
I truly hope that the law has changed, if the police don't need support from the victim to make a case, that will ensure the children's safety is the responsibility of someone for whom it is the most important item on their agenda.

CPS Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Domestic Violence

Hmmm I can't find it now. Maybe I'm wrong.

I find it strange though - is it really true that if eg the police turn up and the women in lying on the floor with a smashed in face and the man is holding a bloodstained weapon, that they can't arrest him/bring a prosecution?

I will keep looking for links!

this was brought into law i think last year

Will see if I can find it.

Doesn't it ring a bell for anyone else? There was a big thing about it here, what with the beermats and all!

my friend was told unless she left her dp and went into refuge, her ds would be taken away from her, i was referred to ss because u told someone about my dv issues, some of the women i met in the refuge were only there coz they were forced to by ss, some of the women still saw their partners

If that's the case, I'm delighted.
Links please.

Hold on a sec, I thought that the law had been changed so that charges could be brought against people who committed DV without a complaint from the victim. There was a big thing about them putting advertising on beer mats which basically said "if you go home and beat your wife up, we can get you, even if she won't say a word".

So a lot of the arguments on here are not right I think? As if there is evidence of abuse, the police can intervene without a complaint from the victim.

Also that I understood sakura's OP, very well. I do believe (IME) that certain processes and people in SS are inherently sexist, as Sakura says, putting a much higher standard of behaviour etc on the mother than the father.