To think that police policy of calling SS after three calls is contributing directly to people remaining in abusive situations?

[Springblumen]

And also those who say you have nothing to fear from SS have never actually had any dealings with them?

I know of more than one woman who has remained being knocked about because of the fear of SS involvement.

I don't know what the answer is but it is a shocking state of affairs when a public service is viewed with such fear and suspicion that it is actually contributing to higher levels of domestic abuse.

I have had dealing with them - very direct dealings after my exH nearly killed me during a pyschotic episode.

I have no problems with them being called after 3 incidents which the police are called to. TBH I'm suprised it's not less.

I am not sure I undersatnd what you mean, is it something like women not telling about DV because they fear if they are their children would be tacken from them rather than removing violent partner out of the house? I know very little about the subject but reading your post makes me think I would have the same reasoning which is very sad.

Yes, I know the line has to be somewhere and in my case the police were fantastic and reassuring but I was still utterly terrified at the prospect of SS involvement. I would never call the police again, no matter what happens, which it won't because I got ex out and will never risk a relationship again. The SW I saw actually told me that if the were notified about my family again things would be "stepped up". It is the perception of them that is the problem because I am sure there are some good ones.

I have had SS involvement and I don't agree. If a woman needs to call the police three times about DV, then the children are in a damaging situation and their situation needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I can well understand a woman who is so battered that she hasn't got the strength to escape from an abusive relationship. But I can't understand why you wouldn't want your children out of there. And that is why SS are feared after all- not because they beat children up or make them watch violent adults, but because people think they are going to take the children away.

If police have been called three times to a domestic violence incident I don't understand why the woman remains on the premises or hasn't changed the locks. I appreciate some people exist in very difficult circumstances and have little help but I do not understand why women continue to remain to suffer violence. The police can press charges, most people have family and can't violent partners be legally kept away. When my bf rang in floods, years and years ago because the dh had hit her (again) something she hadn't previously admitted I had her, the boys and two suitcases bundled into my car within an hour and we all arrived at her parents' over 300 miles away before midnight. She never spent another night under the same roof as the bastard. It was a very messy divorce but it certainly didn't involve social services.

Yes gorionine. That is what I meant.

what would you prefer, that the police ignored the situation, shrugged their shoulders and said meh

they have a duty of care to get help for vulnerable children

if the adults want to beat 7 bells out of each other, fine, but dont damage the poor kids with your selfishness

actually - come to think of it - there was no police involvement in my case - but SS's were still called after one incident - that was depite the fact that the people who called, and SS's (once the initial assessment was done) realised there was no more danger to myself or the children.

I think the issue of women struggling to leave violent and abusive relationships runs a lot deeper than a fear of having their children taken into care. It can be a crippling situation, especially if it's been going on a long time and they've isolated you from friends and family.

What cory and feeble said.

They have a duty of care to those children. An adult woman can make a choice. Children cannot.

When someone doesn't have that kind of support (I didn't) then calling the police is often the only option and when you fear your kids will be removed if you call them because you physically cannot keep an abusive man out even that safety net is gone. You only have to look at the news to see that some men CANNOT be kept out so guess what we can't stop him hurting you and YOU can't stop him hurting you so let's take your kids. It happens.

Like I said though I don't know what the answer is. Kids have to be protected.

Sorry OP but I don't agree with you - I work in the NHS where we also have a policy of informing SS after three incidents (unless they are of so serious a nature that an immediete referral has been made). I see children all the time who live with violence and abuse as a day to day occurance. They experience the tension build up, they witness the moment the tension breaks and all too often they see and/ir hear what happens afterwards.

I have also seen child protection plans which require the abusive partner to stay away and the woman not to allow him or her access.

These are children who have no way of understanding or processing what is happening to them and who leartn that the way tension and conflict is dealt with is by violence and suppression of the victim. Not good for any child and if SS can help a woman break that cycle by coming down heavy to ensure the abuser remains away and woman has access to support services to break the cycle of violence then so much the better.

Sadly in domestic violence it is not only the victimised parent who is traumatised. there are also more than a few studies suggesting that a high number of these abusers are also abusing their children. YABU.

The policy of SS being called came about after research which showed that a really high proportion of children living in families where DV is ongoing, suffer some kind of abuse. That is it is after 3 times. As research showed it wasn't the same risk to children if there were only a few incidents.

So I understand why some women might not report DV because of this policy. But what do you expect the authorities to do? Ignore this research and not get involved when there is a much higher risk children are being abused?

And I know not everyone who suffers ongoing DV will have children who are being abused. But because the probability is much higher, SS have to get involved.

I've had lots of dealings with them, regarding many different cases and I can hand on heart say they have never done thier job properly on all counts.

But then, according to Ofsted my local SS department are among the worst in the country and have barely improved if at all in the time they have been being assessed.

As I keep saying, I don't know the answer, just wanted to discuss it.

I think that it would be much more helpful if the abuser was punished properly and locked up, so that the victim had time to deal with the aftermath without pressure. Of course, that brings its own problems...

But why would your fear of having your child removed be greater than your fear of having your child damaged (mentally or physically) by an abusive situation? Do mums in this situation have some idea that as their mother you are the only person who can protect them and that somehow being with you will be enough protection regardless of what they have to see and experience? To me it seems a bit like the mums who say they don't want to leave their child at home when they go shopping in case they have a car crash. Surely if you are in a dangerous situation, the last place you would want your children to be is where you are?

When my children have been ill I have been grateful that they have been taken into hospital (once without consulting me). If they were in any other danger, I would be grateful to anyone who helped to remove them from danger.

I was admittedly upset and angry when dd was kept in hospital against our wishes on a suspicion of abuse, but that was because I knew the danger was not real. If there had been a violent situation at home, I would have known that the danger was real.

If I had a serious contagious disease I would want my children as far away from me as possible. I wouldn't describe that as a fear that they would be taken from me- more a fear that they would stay and come to harm. So what is different with a violent man? Isn't that a situation you'd want to protect your children from?

I do realise it is stupid/unreasonable/not reasonable... Cory and that I might think differently in the situation. All I can imagine is that in a situation were my life was a misery and my children were the only thing keeping me going it would send me over the egde if they were emoved from me.

meant to write not responsable, no "no reasonable" doh!

I do understand that too, gorionine, and it is a horrible position to be in

but I have met so many people who have been damaged for life by growing up in abusive households- I can understand why the police feel their first duty is towards the children who really haven't got a choice

could part of the problem be that mothers are not given enough reassurance about getting their children back once the danger is past, that there is a perception that being taken into care has to be forever?

My MIL is currently in the position of having a violent, abusive and manipulative partner. She can't get rid of him because he won't leave the house. His name is on the mortgage to the police won't do anything and the last few times they have been called to the house they have basically said it wouldn't be worth arresting or charging him.

MIL's partner has become less violent since my dh and two of his brothers became taller than him (coward!) but MIL can't get rid of him.

A couple of years ago ss said they would take her children away if he didn't leave. He wouldn't so MIL was forced to rent a 3 bedroom house for 10 people, she did this for 4 months until ss closed the case then had to move back to her house (with her partner still living there) because she couldn't afford to pay the rent and mortage and it was impossible to live comfortably in 3 bedrooms with that many people.

All she can do is wait for the partner to leave - she doesn't feed him, no one (even the kids) won't speak to him but he still won't go.

I think, and I realise this is very unpopular, but I think that it comes down to choice.

A person who stays in an abusive relationship has made that choice. - now, please understand what choice means. unless you are tied up and locked up, you have made a choice to stay. the reason you have made that choice is likely to be fear, terror, feeling like you don't, in fact, have a choice. but you have decided to go back home after going to the supermarket, to go back home after work, to go back home after the school run... Now I know that the reason people do that is that they are generally so ground down and afraid that they just are not thinking clearly. I know that. They have a reason for their choice that seems clear to them and seems to be the best and least dangerous one.

but. a child in that situation has no choice. none at all. nowhere to go. no refuge to flee to alone. no way to get themselves out of that situation, no matter how hard the choice to do so would be for them. if they had it.

They are trapped in that situation because they have no way of leaving without a parent.

So if the parent keeps them in that situation because of their own fears and feelings and worries and belief that they have no other choice, then there does come a point when someone outside the situation may have to step in.

If, however, the abuser has been removed from the family, and comes back to cause harm, then there is no way that the children should be removed or it should even be threatened. That's stupid. That's like blaming the parent if a burglar got into the house and taking the kids away because someone broke in. Stupid. The police should just prosecute like they would anyone getting into a house where they had no business being.

I am surprised and disappointed that it can take three visits by police tbh. So I'm sorry OP, but I think you're wrong, and I'm sad to say it, but the lady you mentioned is either selfish or stupid.

Could be wrong but am sure that when police are called to any property with children and their is violence etc,it is automatically put on the system that includes social services being informed.Therefore ss should be contacting the family; surely a good thing- this is lives we are talking about