Why do social services take away the children instead of the violent man?

@Midgebabe
Usually it's the perpetrator that leaves, not the other way round. That does leave the victim at risk of continued harassment etc due to knowing where she lives.

In high risk cases where people have to leave in secret then clearly its not often very possible to stay in the same home.

In cases where social care are involved I've not known finding housing to be much of s problem, but clearly in many cases social care aren't involved and social housing is in very short supply.

May have missed something, but why is one problem for women the lack of say housing etc. Why is it that the children have to leave, the women can leave too and that way looks after her kids better, but the man gets to Stay? Is this just because if they move a man out he still knows where they are? Is it because the woman are even more likely to let the man back in that situation?

Ive not bn a victim of phychal violence myself but why would u want ur children watching daddy beating mum up?? But have had to call police if they wont leave mine & go home....and bn stalked by ex's. And yes deff not something my children should ever see. But police cant convict & yet social worker can act & remove a child with the "this might happen or probablys"
They NEVER remove the very children that are & still are abused!!!
Because there training is same as back in the 60's when everyone had to put up & brush it all under carpet.....all these "safegurding" measures not helping to spot the real victims of abuse & help them. Focusing & breaking up familys wear theres a "risk of" yet what are they going to do better for that child???? Nothing

Sevendown That men can be abusive partners but wonderful fathers seems to be the view pushed by the family court system. Women who seek to protect their children are often punished for it. What we need is change in the courts and supporting organisations.

There’s an assumption being made on this thread that women want to leave.

I’ve seen so many women think it’s more important for the children to have both their parents together than than to have them not witness abuse.

The lengths some women will go to to enable their children’s fathers to have a relationship with them is shocking.

I’ve heard so many say ‘but he’s a good dad’ even when they themselves have bruises on their face.

This is why we need public education.

Working with individuals won’t solce the problem.

It is a fair point as well that removing the abuser isn't necessarily removing the problem if the woman is going to be vulnerable to the next abusive man that comes along. We know abusers look for vulnerable targets, and also, let's be honest, if a woman comes with a home and some income beyond JSA she might be an attractive prospect. I think all women in that position need to be offered the most intensive of support necessary, be that social work, psychological or whatever, but the state can't realistically prevent competent adults from having relationships. It's the sort of thing that would need societal and attitude change, I think.

Are they safe from violence, threats of violence and abuse? I've read that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves. In family court, will her efforts to keep her children safe be recognised as being those of a good parent, or alienating the children from their father? Will the children now be visiting the violent man unsupervised?

Not sure if much else can be done by social services or not, but they need to be able to work with the courts in protecting children, everyone needs to get on the same page.

What I believe is that giving a woman “chances” to keep her children when she doesn’t have the necessary resources to escape or draw watertight boundaries is cruel. Especially when SS don’t have the resources to provide support either.

I tried to find the 40% stat bit couldnt...could you repeat? Apologies!

So what more could social care do? Like I said, I've never seen a case where everything hasn't been provided such as new accommodation. In my experience it's simply not the case that women are told to leave and then expected to get on with it. That would be ridiculous. But yes...what specifically could they do?

The cuts in domestic abuse charities are crippling and probably result in more people getting to the point of social care involvement and that is a real problem.

When i was looking upthread I did find the bit about social care assessing whether a single parent works or not. Shocking, yes, but again not standard practitehe. I've never heard of it before or done it.

I know there's undoubtedly cases of really bad practice but I find the idea/presumption that we're just waiting to remove children from vulnerable women and giving them "chances" like some sadistic power play so frustrating. I've done so much through my work to encourage women in such positions to re-discover their confidence and to appreciate their skills and qualities as parents, and I've worked fucking hard to provide support so that children don't need to live in care (in almost every case other professionals in school or health etc are saying children should be removed) and in the vast majority cases its been successful.

So what specifically should be done differently, at social care end?

Yes.

agreed

UC is rendering the Children Act useless.

“Risk of future emotional abuse” deserves a mention again here. I know it was mentioned upthread.

And I should say that, (although we have family experience of special guardianship, step-parenting and other non-biological parenting) DH and I ruled out having a joint child via adoption because our collective insights gave us deep unease around these types of issue in the CP system.

I expect I’ll get attacked by adopters now, but it’s our honest observation and analysis that there are major flaws.

know children should not be moved unless it's a last resort but I'm really not sure that they are in domestic abuse cases. Do you believe they are?

I’ll poke my nose back in and answer.

What I believe is that giving a woman “chances” to keep her children when she doesn’t have the necessary resources to escape or draw watertight boundaries is cruel. Especially when SS don’t have the resources to provide support either.

Which isn’t to say I believe that that is always the issue, but I believe it is in a proportion of cases. Just consider that “40%” statistic upthread.

@iceweasel
That's why there should be more support for women to do so, social services should be able to offer evidence and assistance. Also more support for women to take the children and leave the family home if that is what she would prefer, easier access to social housing and financial help. Children should only be taken as a last resort.

Agreed but I covered that in my earlier post at about 9.30am. I'm sure there's incidents of bad practice but in my experience of working these cases we've always tried everything possible to do this. Including providing for all the practicalities that can be a barrier.

I know children should not be moved unless it's a last resort but I'm really not sure that they are in domestic abuse cases. Do you believe they are?

@chaoticgood

“People who are a danger to themselves and others are supposed to be sectioned under the mental health act, I thought.”

Only if due to mental illness. Not if someone is just an arsehole.

And its not just affecting abused women. Soon 2 kids will get UC or CTCs and the others won't. ie government sanctioned child abuse

I completely agree Bowl, Uni Credit in particular is making this impossible

The Children Act was written with the assumption that abused women would have the means to leave - ie a working social security system; secure tenancies; sufficient domestic violence services; jobs offering a living wage; accessible childcare. Austerity took all that away. Hence the massive rise in care applications. - langcleg.

This. Austerity is directly driving an appalling rise in neglect, in abuse because services are being cut, and in poverty. Women and children suffer disproportionately, and the echoes of this will continue in ruined lives for a very long time.
Investment in these services isn’t woke or cool or attention grabbing, but it is vital for a healthy society.

SuperLoudPoppingAction thank you. I had not heard of the Safe and Together model. I will look at it.

I am sorry you have been through/are going through a similar set of circumstances. I just have to stick my head in the sand about legal fees. I have an excellent solicitor and she has achieved an awful lot in a difficult situation, but it is savings and earnings for my children’s future gone. We live day to day now. I would not go back to where we were, I am trying to recover and DC is thriving but the emotional and physical costs have been enormous, for something I did not cause and when I did all I could to protect DC. I am still not fully out as ex is still pushing and we are nowhere near a final order, so it seems never ending.

I hope you are doing okay.

The Safe and Together stuff looks worth exploring, though, so thank you

I didn't say a court order was "The solution"" I said it was ".. the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence" a conditional statement.

Your view on court orders foloowing my suggestion:
"there is a wealth of literature available re the problems with these orders, the govt consultation into reforms acknowledges they are problematic and ineffective as solutions..."

Your view on court orders to Malarkeys suggestion:
"It is a good one IMO and you may be pleased to hear it was in the recent govt consultation."

Again, and this is the last time I will say it. I did not make any point against the use of court orders. The point of disagreement was positioning the civil orders we currently have re DA as ‘the solution’ for various reasons that are all available up thread but broadly; they are widely written about as being ineffective, my personal experiences confirm this, they are ineffective in part because they are not easy to get or enforce.

Malarkey made a point about monitoring perpetrators using electronic tagging. The govt consultation contained some questions about this. This is a different point to the one you made.

What do you think an occupation order is if it isnt a court order

Oh, well I misconstrued that. Apologies.

Malarkey suggested tagging as a way of monitoring compliance with staying away. If you read my posts I have never said court orders were the problem. I simply disagreed with your assertion that occupation orders are ‘the solution’ re the problems discussed on this thread.

Malarkey made a different point completely.

I dont know what your post at 2035 means. I said ffs because I suggested a court order and get criticised, someone else suggests a court order and its a good idea. Confused.