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

*but why it’s not necessarily any use to other women

Yes I did read that bit. I am also referring to that group of women.

You made the claim that the orders are ‘the appropriate recourse’ for that group of women.

Many people have tried to explain to you why you may feel that may have helped you (though you don’t know because you didn’t apply for the orders), 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...

Potentially, but only if she wants to. Still leaves the Local Authority in a difficult position regarding the kids if she doesn't
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.

Lots of women who are abused within a relationship come to see their abuser as their security. The idea of that security being threatened is incredibly scary. Denial of what's happening can be at a visceral level.
All the while they are likely doing a lot to keep their children safe like sending them out to play while they provoke an argument so a very volatile guy can get his mood out of his system and quieten down in time for children to be put to bed.

Not actually optimal parenting but brave and insightful behaviors adapted to a very adverse set of circumstances.

Have you all seen the Safe and Together model?
It's resource heavy but as a mindset shift I think it's helpful.

The Three Planets discussed as part of the training rings very true.

Christ, nowordsnow - that's all eerily like my own situation.
I try and be all pollyanna about spending so much on a solicitor.
I would rather spend it on other things though tbh

If she doesnt want to then we discussed earlier in the threadpossible reasons and options

Because both parents are clueless about protecting children

A man being violent aggressive or abusive is one reason, and failure of the other parent to understand and keep their children safe is reason 2.

A mother who was making all steps to remove her cildren and protect them from abuse would not have a child removed usually, but a woman that minimised the abuse and continued to put her children in the care or presense of an abuser is not a fit parent euther.

A lot of women continue relationships with abusive men even though it puts their children at risk. Its not ok

the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence.’ did you read this bit? because that bit clearly means for a certain group of abused women not all.

How is spontaneously minimising coercive control in a post detailing coercive control?!

Can't the woman get a court order for his removal without a conviction? Remove him from the family home and local area. He finds himself alternative accommodation?

Potentially, but only if she wants to. Still leaves the Local Authority in a difficult position regarding the kids if she doesn't

The last sentance sorry was addressed generally to everyone on the thread, just catching up

Spontaneous

The whole point with these men is they isolate then they begin the process of getting the woman so compliant she believes it is her fault and she is why he hits her. If she didn't do this, do that, say this, do that on time and so on. These women are often so beaten down they have no idea which way is up. They do truly believe they are to blame.

By cutting them off from family and friends or any other form of support, the man exercises maximum control with no come back. She is totally at his mercy.

Many of these women have no phones, no access to the outside world to get help. Financial abuse is a given in these circumstances and even being able to put away a couple of pound is an almost impossible feat. He will control absolutely everything down to the last penny - he doesn't want her to escape, this is his ideal, why change what has taken years to build. He will protect what he has created.

These men are unhinged monsters

This is very close to what happened in my case except I had a phone and he hit me only twice. He used different methods, the favourite being to make me hate myself and therefore dangerously suicidal.

Just because a man doesn't hit you doesn't mean its not life threatening. And many of these women can be helped by following the advice I gave because the physical element is not in the perpetrators armoury. Please do not minimise non-violent coercive control.

How am I saying anything of the kind?!

I was not the one claiming a catch all solution, my very point which you quoted was saying if you are going to claim ‘the solution is’ then it needs to actually be a solution.

I was disputing your rather arrogant pronouncement that;

‘The appropriate recourse in this situation is to apply for an occupation order through the courts. Many women would be unaware of this of course but it is the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence.’

Which seems to be based on you personally feeling that if you had applied to court for such orders they would have been helpful.

That’s my point really. If things are going to be offered as ‘the solution’ then they a. Need to be effective and b. Need to be available to all.

I think that statement is wrong Offred: different points in the spectrum often require different solutions from acne to prison sentences.

I think pooh pooh ing one solution to one degree of domestic violence is mean. You are basically saying those women who arent under danger of their life dont matter

I am speaking from a position largely of ignorance on this. But I have seen my own dd in the thrall of an abusive man. She has no children- but with huge pain and reluctance I have to say that I not sure she would have put their needs first if she had....

Think about it logically. How could the local authority remove a man anyway? Remove him to where? He can't be imprisoned unless found guilty/pled guilty at trial.
Can't the woman get a court order for his removal without a conviction? Remove him from the family home and local area. He finds himself alternative accommodation?

It's also often magistrates, ie amateurs, who are making the decisions rather than the judges. There's a discussion to be had about whether that's a good or a bad thing

It's a bad thing imo. I had a lay bench that was nearly moved to tears by a handmade Christmas card from a very violent father to his son. He had been stalking the mother for months, trying to find her new address. The card apparently was powerful enough for the lay bench to think that unsupervised contact straight away without a Cafcass report was a great idea because 'clearly he loves his son so much'. It took quite robust advocacy to tell them they were talking out of their arses and breaching the practice direction. Meanwhile, the mum was shaking with fear. These days so many people are unrepresented and don't even have a lawyer to wade in and tell the bench that they are being idiots and putting lives at risk.

Because of what the law says.
Local authorities have a duty of care towards children in their area. The Children Act 1989 sets out the test for removal.
A local authority have no right to remove a man, only the police do and that's only if they can arrest him etc.
What I would say is that in most cases, the local authority will have given the family a chance and they will have told the mother that they will remove the children if she doesn't get rid of the man. Sadly, in some cases this doesn't happen and the local authority have to intervene.
Think about it logically. How could the local authority remove a man anyway? Remove him to where? He can't be imprisoned unless found guilty/pled guilty at trial.

It's also often magistrates, ie amateurs, who are making the decisions rather than the judges. There's a discussion to be had about whether that's a good or a bad thing but the levels of training are quite different.

I don't know why someone posted that bullshit about violent men not being considered a danger to children - violent men are responsible for the vast majority of children on child protection plans.

In private law cases, judges operate a presumption in favour of contact. This presumes that contact with both parents is beneficial and positive for the child. Past domestic abuse does not necessarily rebut the presumption- judges very often take the view that abuse of the mother does not necessarily impact on parenting ability.

As a social worker, you will see the very extreme cases that reach the radar of social services. So many family situations where there is lower level abuse or where the family is middle class so the abuse is covered up will be dealt with through the private law system. Here, there doesn't seem to be the same appreciation of the damage caused by domestic abuse.

I'm still struggling to see what sort of thing could be evidence warranting removal of a child but not evidence of a crime.
I'm not familiar with the DV laws in this country, but is it not easier to get a court order to protect against threats and harm, and to remove a violent man from the family home than it is to get a criminal conviction? Is the burden of proof not less?

I'm saying that if there is enough evidence to remove a child there should be enough to remove a violent man, but not necessarily enough for a conviction.

OP it's because the standard of proof for criminal convictions and in the family courts is different.

In order to be found guilty of a criminal matter, you're supposed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But this is unusually high within the legal system: most standards of proof are balance of probabilities, or sometimes even lower. The family court works on the balance of probabilities.

So for example you can have a child with injuries that are obviously non-accidental, and there are 2 carers, sometimes more. Both blame the other and there's no evidence that who was responsible, only that one of them was. You're not likely to see a criminal conviction there, because there's not enough proof, but equally the child is probably going to need to be removed because it's obvious that one of them did it and the other one failed to protect.

I do agree with the criminal standard of proof and civil standard of proof being different. I wouldn't want to see balance of probabilities introduced when someone was losing their liberty possibly for decades or more, and nor would I advocate raising the standard of proof in the civil courts either- and even if I did, neither is going to happen. But this discrepancy does lead to some problems, certainly.

I think the issue with the evidence is that one requires evidence and the other evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

It is often easy to see the impact on a child in behaviour, school results, illness but there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man in the house is causing this.