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

I think it comes from the assumption that the mother is in collusion. I expect that this isn’t always the case but it implies a level of neglect that the woman has not involved the police.
I don’t agree with this viewpoint but at a guess this is the rationale for removing the children. Particularly in cases of multiple children and where the mother hasn’t left before. She may well be vulnerable and unable to take care of herself, left alone the children.

The difficulty as well is that it's one thing to correctly identify that a child is being harmed or at risk of harm, and children in households where their parent experiences DV are that alright. No argument there. It's another to do any better for them. The outcomes for children in care are appalling. They have been for a long time now.

And in terms of the men losing their kids, they aren't always their kids.

I think what the OP says is really interesting. I have no idea how you could democratically do it though.

Without setting the impact of austerity aside, not everyone who experiences DV fits a stereotype of poor and uneducated and without means. I can see how the threat of losing your kids might be the wake up call some will finally act on, but remarkably there are people who still can't see it or see it too late. I know a woman who has lost her kids this way through 3 successive abusive relationships. She has a degree that's relevant to DV and at one point was looking like a star student with a bright future ahead of her. She has had extraordinary help from family to keep out abusive partners. In the end she still lost her kids.

Friends have a daughter adopted after social services removed her from an abused mum. She got out and stayed safe but too late to get her child back. She was fighting the adoption, but it still went through (in the interests of the child). The friends were put through the mill as they didn't know whether the adoption would go through, but I felt awful for the mum.

Hypothetically, if you had all the resources in the world and could start from scratch... If there were an effective system for keeping an abusive partner away for a significant amount of time (say, a tag - for a fixed time - backed up by a specially created police force if the terms of the court order were violated and a short prison sentence for repeated violations. Obvs there would have to be significant proof that the abuser was committing crime) and insisting that mothers do the Freedom course as a condition of keeping their kids, might that reduce the numbers of children taken away?

And the abusers are people too, shouldn't they be offered the therapy need to change? I'm sure I've heard of something that's had good results. Again, why aren't we focusing more on them? A lot of abusing stems from their own unhappiness.

Can't remember what the law is about pressing charges when the victim doesn't want to. Is there anything we could do better there?

I'm a social worker and I have been involved in such cases.
Haven't quite read the full thread yet.

These are some of the saddest cases to be involved in.

We have no power to move an adult like the man (nor the children actually unless we go to court or a parent gives permission).

That's why we can't move the man. If police are involved and arrest him and he's bailed with conditions not to visit property or remanded that's great because there's temporary some safety for the children then.

If not, we can say we would request the man to leave but only for a temporary period of time and by agreement. They can say no.

If its at a point where children might have to be removed there's serious risk of on going traumatic abuse in the home. In such cases the man is quite likely to have had previoua arrests and convictions but he won't be locked up for life so if the couple are reuniting straight away that won't protect the child. We know the vast majority of incidents are unreported so the children won't be protected the first time it happens, and even if they were that wouldn't be good enough.

What can we do? We can remove the man, if the woman doesn't want to leave we can't help her leave.

What we can do is make is 100% clear that the man is a danger to the children to both the man and the woman and tell them both that if he's in the house or around the children against any agreed conditions then we would be worried about the safety of the children. That's as close to removing a man as we can go. 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. When that fails we have to consider whether the children need to live elsewhere for their safety.

Another thing is that where I've worked women in cases liked that have always had they physical means of leaving partner. The finances, the accommodation, the transport...the new phone number, whatever it takes we have provided this on every such case. This is harder now due to the complete dismantling of services but we still do it. I can't speak for other areas. Again, what we can't do is give women the emotional strength and resilience to see it through after years of grooming and undermining of their self-belief, although we can try our best to encourage it.

These cases are the worst because you can see the emotional impact of controlling and coercive behaviour on the people who are going through it and still entrapped by it. It's so sad and defeating and these are often people who would make great parents if they left.

Sorry for any predictive typing errors

melliegrant I am in Scotland, which is part of the UK, but a different legal jurisdiction.

Rainy dog

The man loses his children and is excluded from the home

I do agree with the OPs point. If things are bad enough to remove the children why is nothing done to the man?
Yes the mother should be all about protecting her dc but thats not the point here. Things are serious enough for dc to be removed yet there is zero comeback on the man. That seems very wrong.

@NoWordsNow
So sorry you went through this it sounds very stressful. My post was not aimed at you as your post wasn't showing as I wrote mine.
You didn't get your children removed though??
My comment was (or should have been) parents will get a great deal of support before removal...... this has been my experience of the process, freedom courses, support workers, counselling, refuges, work in school with the children, debt/financial advice, I've even seen a parent rehomed and new furniture bought for them . That doesn't seem to marry up with your experience though so maybe it's not a consistent standard.
You sound extremely strong, and your children are lucky to have you. Good luck in the future

Well said stardust!!

These kids have endured so much before they are removed

Having worked within safeguarding it basically boils down to the mother making appropriate decisions to effectively safeguard her children.
If the man is known to be abusive etc the woman would be supported to leave the man for the physical and emotional wellbeing of the children.
For me it's common sense. I get what you are saying but a child is never removed lightly and the woman would always be helped and supprted

Grass pigeons

You are right. He will abuse others it is only by chance that one time the mother might be so afraid she calls the police and this triggers SW involvement.

Many women won’t call the police for this reason

The difficulty, in my experience as a family lawyer, is that many many women have a propensity for entering into relationships characterised by domestic abuse. Of course there are always reasons for this (usually entrenched in childhood issues) but the reality seems to be that even if you manage to 'get rid' of one abuser, it's only a matter of time before another one takes his place.

A lot of the women in these type of situations do not recognise the impact of DV on the children involved and would require months/years of CBT/DBT type therapy in order to make the changes needed. Those timescales are not usually compatible with the welfare of the children.

The 'system' is far from ideal but I can count on one hand the number of cases I've dealt with where removal of the children by SS has centred around only 1 abusive relationship and even then there have been other factors at play.

As an aside, legal aid is still available for those wanting to pursue non molestation/occupation orders but don't have the confidence or knowledge to conduct their own proceedings. It is subject to income/capital assessment but for the most vulnerable women there is usually the possibility of instructing a solicitor to help.

Ella oldie

If this was the woman’s third relationship featuring DV then she has a predisposition to date abusers. She may we’ll have grown up where DV was prevalent in the home.

Should those kids go back? Or have they suffered enough? They’d have to leave placements to be returned on the basis that mum would never date another abuser.

Kids shouldn’t be returned then removed on a constant basis

I agree op. The onus is on the woman to protect her offspring and get away. I agree that social services need to be child centric and have a lower burden of proof as the risks are great. But I'd expect higher rate of men in these cases to end up with a criminal conviction. The man presumably goes on to abuse another family that may not end up on social services radar for years.

I have read Family Court judgements where chikdren are still taken or not returned AFTER the woman has left because there is an assumption her future relationships will be the same and there is a risk of future emotional harm to the child. I don't know what evidence these future risk assessments are based on but it seems some women can't win. Is there consideration of the harm which is guaranteed if a child is removed, shunted between different foster parents etc?

No words now

But you are in a different country by the sounds of it so the same laws wouldn’t apply?

Op

Why are children removed and not the DV perpetrator?

Because the mother has refused to protect her children from him. Because after initial SW involvement where she is told to keep him out of the home she doesn’t listen, because after a few weeks she starts asking SW when he can come home? Because she has a pattern in dating men who are known as DV perpetrators?

Disclosing to SW that a man has beaten you and emotionally abused you for years (usually in a low moment after an attack) then weeks later the woman’s anger subsides and she wants him back home and he pressures her to ask SW they say no. This also shows that she has failed to understand the lifelong emotional impact on her kids DV/DA will have.

Kids growing up like this end up turning out like this and the cycle continues.

The offender will be dealt with via the justice system.

There are usually other factors at play too such as addiction etc

It’s not black and white.

Someone mentioned about why working is relevant - that’s just part of the holistic assessment looking at all aspects of the child’s world.

Read my post again RideSallyRide what help and support was I given?

I raised a concern about my DS’s welfare and I was assessed. My capacity as a parent, my ability to keep DS safe. I had done nothing wrong.

Surely it is the primary responsibility of BOTH parents to keep their child/ten safe?

Because a parent's primary role in life is to keep her children safe and put them first. Women (or men actually in some case) are given a lot of help and support to do this by cutting contact with a person who is a danger to the children but if they won't/can't then they take the children as the parent Is failing to keep them safe. Locking up the perpetrator wouldn't work I'm afraid because they couldn't keep them locked up forever so it's likely things would start up again on release, also sadly women who are vulnerable to this extent are often targeted by abusive potential partners so she may well find another partner who's just as bad (I've seen this happen more than once) it's desperately sad and the decision is never taken lightly, often a mother is providing really good care for the children in other ways. Sometimes, though, it's the only course of action that's going to keep those children safe long term.

NC for this.

I left an abusive relationship five years ago. I was harassed, stalked and it left me with anxiety and panic attacks. The law considers the best interests of the child to be contact with the non-resident parent. My separated husband used contact as a way of getting at me. Emotional manipulation, aggression and hostility, following me and DC back to the car, touching me when I told him not to. I was not yet up to speed on how coercive control works.

We are in a jurisdiction where you need agreement on childcare arrangements to be able to divorce. Firstly, he refused to get a solicitor. He only did this when I threatened to call the police if he came to the house. Then it was difficult to agree contact which DS could manage (DS is now diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum, but it was coming out as behaviour then).

This went on for three years. Just me trying to enact a separation/divorce I had started and he did not accept. He does not need to do anything criminal, just not agree the childcare.

I cut lots of details, which revolve around DS not settling to overnight contact and me trying to facilitate it, because that is what the law tells you to do. I had seen three lawyers for opinions by this point.

Then DS disclosed abuse and some of his past behaviour made sense. He disclosed this also in interview with the family protection unit. I live in a jurisdiction where corroboration is required. His father gave a no comment interview. The police told me it was extremely difficult to get a prosecution in these circumstances because it relied on the words of a child. They told me I was doing a good job of protecting my child and to keep doing it.

Social work did not speak to DS, or my ex. They assessed my parenting capacity and found me to be motivated to keep DS safe. They said they had no role, and I could keep contact stopped through the courts.

But if you don’t qualify for legal aid, and where I am, the threshold applies also for domestic abuse cases, who pays for that? Life-savings, such as they were, re-mortgaging house, a good friend who I can never pay back, debt. And the courts work on the principle that it is in the best interests of the child to have some contact.

For a poster above to say you just need to fill in some forms is such an under-estimation of the real costs. Firstly, if you are the resident parent, you cannot bring the case where I am, because that is not the contested part. So the parent seeking contact has to do it. If they send multiple letters to your solicitor instead, then that costs emotionally and financially, even if all your solicitor is doing is saying no, or forwarding the latest missive on.

This is not even half the story. You need to add in him muddying the waters around getting an ASD diagnosis and arguing (also in court) that it was my parenting and mental health issues. You need to add in a series of court hearings which drag on and nothing resolved. You need to remember where I am you cannot get divorced without child arrangements being resolved.

Violence is not always physical and does not always leave bruises.

I am lucky. I had the savings, the equity and the affluent and kind friend, the ability to borrow against future earnings. I have an excellent solicitor (now - for the first three years, in retrospect, I had a rubbish one). I have been able to put enough boundaries in place to make things safe and manageable for DC.

I have not managed to get my ex to stop pushing for direct contact with me. I have not managed to get to a stage where child contact arrangements are agreed (and this will probably remain the case for a good while, given the circumstances), I cannot divorce the man.

So, the things I know now about the judiciary system, social work, and family law, as well as how coercive control works (and is not recognised, firstly not by myself and then only slowly by those involved), what do I do with all that?

I just write this because the attitude of some posters that a mother should protect her children or face having them removed. I got no help to protect my DC. I do not know what would have happened if I had said on-going contact is fine, I am not standing against it.

What if I had been a SAHM or low wage, reliant on ex’s income to feed and house my children, what then? Walk a mile in some-one else’s shoes.

And my question is serious, with everything I know now, if you were me, how would you help change things in the future?

I agree battlax but I’d also reform laws so that there was a cohesive approach to DA.

It should not be possible for SC, the police, housing, medicine and the judiciary to all have their own separate rules, approaches, bureaucracies and aims.

If SC see witnessing DA as child abuse then the other orgs should too.

Social policy should also be consistent no more considering both adults for one purpose but seeing them as single people for others and no-one should risk destitution. Full stop. It’s inexcusable given how wealthy our country is.

When I was assessed by SC their attitude changed immediately when they saw my degree certificate and I told them it was an LLB.

The worst thing is that that isn’t even slightly surprising

As part of parenting capacity SC assess whether a single parent has work.... what does having work say that has any meaning regarding parenting capacity?

Revolting, it really is.

If I had a couple of hundred million to throw at this, I think I’d be tempted to spend it on reforming the judiciary, rather than starting with SW policy. Possibly starting with lavish funding for graduate entrants from ordinary backgrounds. The structure of the legal profession, training etc, leaves us stuck with exactly the archaic, classbound system you’d expect. We’ll never move forward until we reverse that dramatically.