to be disgusted and furious with the attitude of this social worker WWYD?

[inatrance]

I am so angry about this I can't think straight so would appreciate any thoughts to help me know what to do next. Apologies in advance for huge post.

I am friends with one of the mums at dd's school who has a child who was in her class. Originally (a couple of years ago) she turned up at school with her face a complete mess (black eyes, bruises) which was why we became friends as I obviously suspected she was being abused and engineered a conversation where she confided that this was the case.

Her P is a vicious, evil bully and has put her through the sheer hell of emotional (and sometimes physical) torture for years and I have supported her as much as I can in the time that I have known her and encouraged her to involve Women's Aid. They have recently allocated her a support worker.

The other huge problem she has is that her P is a heavy drinker and has encouraged her to also develop an alcohol problem. He has used this to threaten her and control her (telling her it's her own fault he treats her so badly because she drinks, tells her that she will lose her son because of it etc) and this is part of the reason that she has been too terrified to leave and has become trapped in the cycle of alcohol dependency. She has tried (and succeeded) repeatedly to stop drinking and has done brilliantly, going to the local Drug and Alcohol dependency unit daily, seeing the D & A counsellor and getting a job. Every time she does, and she starts regaining her strength and independence, her P steps up the abuse and intimidation, often in front of their son and knocks her back down until she is back in a mess.

Only the shit hit the fan a while ago as someone reported that she had turned up at school drunk. Social services got involved along with the school and have been unsympathetic to the other issues at play and have made it ALL about her and her drink problem, encouraged by her H who has been invited to meetings to discuss my friend, which of course has played right into his hands in convincing her that it's her own fault that she is being abused.

Until today I honestly thought this was because they were unaware of the facts.

I went to pick up DD and saw her P with their son and a woman who I have seen my friend with recently. I had a horrible feeling and sent her a text to see if she was ok. She sent a message back saying no and asked me to call her.

I rang her and she was in a state, drunk and sobbing down the phone. He had attacked her last week and the neighbours had rang the police, her P was arrested and held then released on bail. I went round and she was covered in huge bruises with a massive black eye. He had attacked her in front of their son.

Yesterday the police and ss had turned up and told her that as she was drinking her son could not be returned to her and he is now at her 'friends' house. I say 'friend' because this is the woman who I had earlier seen with her H and son.
She had no contact numbers or names for anyone from either the police or ss so I spent the next couple of hours trying to find someone who could tell me what the hell was going on.

I eventually got through to the social worker who had been dealing with it and she was incredibly hostile from the word go. I was polite and professional and tried to explain that the reason I was calling was to find out what was happening for my friend and to inform them that this violent man who also has a (worse) drink problem than my friend and who has proven himself to be dangerous had been spotted with their son and to find out whether they were aware of this.

She would NOT let me finish and kept talking over me and when I tried to explain that my friend was legitimately concerned and said that I had known her for a couple of years and seen what he has put her through, she then turned it back on me and began questioning why I had let this go on if I knew what was happening!! When I said about the P drinking she asked me if I personally had ever seen him drunk, implying either that my friend was lying or that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. She basically made her contempt clear for my friend and was utterly unsympathetic as to WHY my friend is drinking and showed seemingly no awareness for the complicated nature of the situation.

When I politely but firmly asked her to let me finish (I repeated this several times) she said that she was ending the conversation, then she put the phone down on me!!!

I could understand it if I was shouting at her, swearing or being abusive but I swear I was not. I was being polite and professional but assertive and I still cant' believe she was unprofessional enough to actually hang up on me. I had thought my friend was blaming herself when she said that ss thought it was all her fault as well, but it appears that she was right.

I did also speak to the police who were brilliant and I think there is a multi agency meeting tomorrow to discuss the child and what to do next. I am still fuming about the unprofessional way she spoke to me and about her whole attitude and I'm stuck as to the best thing to do. Should I complain? Will this make matters worse? I'm getting more help for her tomorrow but it seems that ss have already decided who is the 'bad' parent and for my friend it seems that her worst fears have come true.

Thanks if you have managed to read this far, any insight would be much appreciated.

[Birdsgottafly]

Op- they will be being supervised,this will be a temporary arrangement and it will be subject to review, the school will appoint a mentor, under SS guidance and the SW will be speaking to the DS alone. He will be being watched like a hawk and there will be daily reports about how the child is, in school, no one accept SS and the safeguarding officer may be made aware of this.

Your friend needs to stay sober (sorry to state the obvious) and get good legal advice, persue the charges against her ex and she will get her son back. If she gives in to her ex at a later date she will be seen as not being capable as acting in the best interests of the child and will be in danger of loosing him again.

Is she getting any access at all, she should be getting supervised access but if she turns up drunk she will, quite rightly, lose that.

[hester]

inatrance, have you now written to SS telling them what you know?

[springydaffs]

I#m not justifying the social worker's rudeness but her job is protecting children - and CP SW's can get a bit one-track about that. You told the SW about horrific abuse and my guess is the SW had no time for you because you had not reported this before to SS. In her mind, you were complicit in allowing the child to be subjected to this appalling abuse. CP SW's have very little sympathy for people who do nothing to protect a child who is being abused.

I also think you have been taken in by this woman's plight. Yes it is terrible but, in absolute black and white, she put her relationship before the safety of her child (for whatever reason). I have been a victim of appalling domestic abuse so know what I am saying: I know all the components of domestic abuse, how hard it is for the victim to leave. But leave they must if a child is involved and is being subjected to it too.

I would not complain about the SW - they are hard-pressed for time and a complaint will only use up valuable time they don't have. INstead I would make your concerns known about the boy being placed with his dad, by providing background information in written form (keep it short and to the point, not long-winded). I would call to speak to the SW's manager and say that you have a written statement you want to submit to be added to the file. Physically take it to the office, physically hand it over to the manager.
Attend all the mtgs if you can with your friend (if you are welcome). It is an eye-opener (I have also worked in CP in the past).

SS have moved quickly to remove the child and I'm sorry to say it OP, but if you had made your concerns known to SS much earlier, it could be that this child would not have been placed with his father as your concerns would have been on file that the father was a potential danger. From the SW's pov, SS find out that the mother is a drunk, remove her child, then find out that not only is she a drunk but that she has also subjected her child to domestic abuse by not removing her child from it. They won't take kindly to that double whammy; their priority is the child, not her or her problems. The SW will also not take kindly to you bleating that the 'poor' woman is a victim - however professionally you put it. All she will see is that you did nothing when the child needed you to make known to the relevant authorities that the child was in danger; and she won't be so inclinced to listen to you now when you are saying, effectively, more of the same: that it isn't the mother's fault, that he is the villain. It was the mother's responsibility to protect her child.

[springydaffs]

Sorry to go on a bit more but SS know that victims of domestic abuse are most often addicted to their partners; the addiction has all the hallmarks of any addiction and is as doggedly tenancious as any addiction. From their POV she is doubly addicted, the latter (DA) even more tenancious, if you like, also more dangerous, than the former. I'm afraid her horrific injuries and subsequent alcohol addiction (if it was that way round) will only confirm to them that she is hopelessly addicted, shows no signs of protecting herself or, more importantly from their POV, her child. In order to get her child back she will have to prove through a rigorous and long-term process that she has not only faced her addictions but has proved by her actions that she is addressing them both. She will rightly be heavily monitored if, after a period of time and her fulfilling all the above criteria, her child is returned; in order to ensure she doesn't return to her addictions.

I'm afraid that in CP it is not who is to blame but the facts: that a child is subjected to abuse for whatever reason, and SS will remove the child if those risk factors are in place.

[Casserole]

Birds, and all the other SWs posting on this thread - I take my hat off to you. I couldn't do what you do. Thank you for looking out for children who no-one else is looking out for.

[sunshineandbooks]

First of all, I need to say that despite what I am about to write here, I wholeheartedly agree that removing the child from the mother was the right decision in this case. The drinking is clearly a major problem and while it continues she cannot take charge of the child.

However, I am very disturbed by some of the attitudes on this thread:

Firstly, rudeness is never acceptable from paid professionals, even when dealing with abusive members of the public (when your are supposed to just disengage, remove or press charges). In this case the OP wasn't even being abusive. SWs can make it clear they are unable to discuss the case without hanging up! I've had numerous dealings with social workers when I fostered, and that wouldn't have been acceptable. No one I ever dealt with would behave like that.

Secondly, saying that the mother is responsible for the domestic abuse is sick. Talk about victim blaming! Do we blame children for being abused and ask them why they didn't leave? Do we blame a mugging victim for being mugged and tell them they shouldn't have put themselves in harm's way? If that's the case, then we may as well say that the SWs in this case are as responsible for abusing the child as the mother is, because they have potentially endangered the child by placing him with his abusive father. The OP pointed out her concerns about this so it's not like they can claim they don't know.

The mother has a responsibility to protect her child, and if she's failing to do so it is of course right that SS intervene. That doesn't make the abuse the mother's fault. She is as much a victim as the child. What about the father's responsibility not to abuse? The only person who is responsible for abuse is the abuser. What about the father's responsibility to protect the child from the effects of his mother's alcoholism? Are we saying it's ok for him to fail to protect his child from the mother's alcoholism, but not ok for the mother to protect her child from the effects of the father's abuse? Isn't that a massive double standard?

The point is that the child shouldn't be with either parent as neither parent can put the child's needs first at this point. But no one seems to want to blame the father at all and is placing all responsibility on to the mother. Why is that?

Also I must point out that the idea that domestic violence victims are addicted to their partners is largely a fallacy. Some victims fulfil this pattern, but most do not. The reason many victims do not leave is because they no longer have the same perception of the violence as the outside world. To them it's become normal and their emotions have become that numbed they no longer feel the instinct to flee. Others are too scared to leave. They are paralysed by fear. Two women a week are killed by their partners/ex-partners and most happen at the point the woman is trying to leave the relationship. Women in violent relationships know this. Every time a woman mounts a display of independence, asserts herself or threatens to leave, the game is upped and the man gets worse. That's why Women's Aid advise people to hide their internet history, why the WA number doesn't appear on itemised phone bills, and why WA tell women to gather their things and leave silently with no warning. And violent men are not very good at staying away either, even with non-molestation orders and injunctions in place. The knowledge that you have to face maybe months of dealing with harassment, threats and possible violence is just too much for many victims, already worn down by years of abuse, to deal with. They give up and stay put.

Combine this with the fact that between the episodes of violence things tend to be quite good (and may be better than good in fact), a victim often doesn't leave because she thinks she's protecting the children - after all, according to society children from 'broken homes' have terrible outcomes, end up in prison, on drugs, etc etc - why risk that for your child when violence is only a problem say 20% of the time and it's not as if he hits the kids, only her (NB - I don't think this is ok BTW and I believe anyone who abuses a partner is also abusing a child, but it appears that most people, including the family courts, disagree with me).

The child shouldn't be with either parent, but please stop blaming the mother. It's cruel and unfair, and these sort of attitudes - holding the victim responsible for the abuser's actions - is exactly the reason DV is so prevalent in our society and why 1 in 4 women are abused even in the year 2011. Shall we remove all their children or shall we start concentrating on dealing with abusers and making it clear their behaviour is unacceptable?

[sunshineandbooks]

From the OP: I rang her and she was in a state, drunk and sobbing down the phone. He had attacked her last week and the neighbours had rang the police, her P was arrested and held then released on bail. I went round and she was covered in huge bruises with a massive black eye. He had attacked her in front of their son.

The man is an abuser and cares not that his child has been exposed to it. The child should not be with him anymore than he should be with an alcoholic mother.

I'd say the mother has more chance of being a better parent than the father. More alcoholics stop drinking than abusers stop abusing.

Furthermore, where a victim has a tendency toward a dependent behaviour, abusers will encourage it because it increases their control. The mother's alcoholism might well improve now she's no longer being abused on a daily basis. Her ability to protect the child will also increase the longer she is away from her abuser too, as her perceptions of his behaviour will become more normal.

The main question is what happens to the child next. LA care does it's best but the outcomes are woeful. Far better for the child to be placed with a loving adult. In this particular case I'd say the best way to achieve that is to help the mother with her alcoholism and ensure the father stays away from both of them. There are no guarantees, she may not make it, but there's more chance of that happening than there is of the child having a good future with an abusive father or in a care home.

[unpa1dcar3r]

Perhaps a strong letter to the management of the SS dept explaining that if this is attitude left unchecked you will take it to a stage 2 complaint level via a solicitor.

And perhaps remind them of the code of ethics a SW should follow (but invariably doesn't); they are there to help. Now while she may not be at liberty to discuss this case with you- quite rightly- this does not mean she can make assumptions towards one or another of the parents involved without facts. Her judgement is not what she's there for.
You will find the Social services code of ethics on google somewhere.

Your friend is lucky to have you. Just make sure you don't get too bogged down. You can only help people who want to be helped.

[springydaffs]

I wasn't blaming the mother sunshine though I agree that no-one has mentioned the father - probably because he is a vile piece of work and no-one wants to bother talking about him. I don't think anyone has blamed the mother - there is no blame here, just the facts - which are, that the mother, for whatever complex reasons, did not take steps to protect the child by removing the child from the abuse.

I also think that the alcoholism is the least of the mother's worries - just as abusers rarely stop abusing, the abused can take many years to wake up from the vicious brainwashing from their abusers to recognise that they didn't deserve it. I have also met and counselled endless victims of domestic abuse: all to a one were addicted to their abuser, me included to my abuser. I'm not a dunce but I had a psychological flaw - it is usually previous abuse - which made me a sitting target for an abuser. It takes a great deal of work to undo all that conditioning. One feels tremendous compassion (particularly me, having been there and all, though admittedly not as dire) for the mother BUT she didn't protect her child is the bottom line, and SS stepped in to remove her child from what they only knew at that point to be alcoholism. Hopefully, OP will be making it clear that that isn't the only problem, therefore very hopefully getting the child removed from the abuser's care; but unfortunately the woman's continued presence in the family home, despite appalling abuse, only deepens their case against her eligibility to have the child with her. So, not blame, just facts; with the appropriate care of the child the top priority.

[sunshineandbooks]

This is precisely why we need to change the law on DV. I am talking generally here BTW, not about the OP's friend's situation which is complicated by alcohol.

At the moment, when SS are called in because of abuse, they have no choice but to threaten to remove the child because of failure to protect if the mother won't leave. That places responsibility solely on the mother and allows the father to receive no punishment whatsoever. It condones abuse.

I passionately believe that the correct response would be for SS to have the power to forcibly remove the abuser and to keep him away. An abuser should lose all right to unsupervised access to a child, even if the child was not the target. Removing the abuser and keeping him away stops the abuse instantly and it gives the child the chance to remain with a parent, free from risk and with minimum disruption. No loss of home and having to live in a refuge or B&B, no loss of material possessions, no lack of money because there's no fixed address, etc etc (all of these being common reasons why women go back to their abusers, as well as being traumatic for the child). If after 3-6 months the mother is showing no signs of recovery and SS consider her to be still unable to protect her child, then the child should be removed.

Instead of asking women to stand up to abusive bullies, to run from their homes and subject their children to a massive change in circumstance, let's kick the abusers out on their backsides and restrict their access to children. Abuse is stopped, children protected and a very clear message sent out that abuse is unacceptable.

[sunshineandbooks]

Many of the abusive women I've helped have said that they wanted to leave, and knew they could cope perfectly well on their own and that life would be better. What they couldn't face was the process they were required to go through to reach that point. Months of phone calls, tears, tantrums, court cases over contact, turning up at all hours, being difficult about the belongings in the house, having your car smashed or your tyres slashed etc etc. "If they could just find someone else and leave me" or even "if they'd just die it would all be alright" is a refrain I've often heard.

Giving outside agencies the power to do this, instead of making the victim do it, could go a long way.

You may have guessed I feel strongly about this.

[springydaffs]

But it's people like WA - also people like me, who have been through it - who can advise women in that situation, be a kind of doula when the woman is arse over tit, barely able to think straight. It is possible to minimise the continued abuse once the abused has left, but it takes military planning, accessing the many agencies (including the law) to effect it. In my case, my abuser did meet someone else and, frankly, the abuse reached monumental proportions, as the woman was his new project and she was up to her neck in the brainwashing in no time: the perfect woman, the example he used, with her considerable backing, to beat me with. It's not as simple as that.

The abused does need considerable help and it is out there (thank the dear Lord for WA is all I can say - thank God, thank God) but it is not the remit of SSCP. Their remit is clear and they act on it. SW training is, I think, 2 years so they don't necessarily have the skills and training to manage complex issues and possibly don't need it. Someone needs to pick up the slack though, I agree. MIghty hard to prove domestic abuse though in a lot of cases - mine, for instance.

[sunshineandbooks]

I'm sorry you had to gor through that springydaffs. It is a constant source of amazement to me how many women do.

In my own case I never went to a refuge or used Women's Aid, though I did become homeless with two four-month-old babies. I don't think it's necessary, nor should it be, for a mother to have to leave her home to get help and support. There needs to be a massive injection of funding into areas such as these so that WA can supply enough outreach workers I suppose we'd call them. There's no reason why victims can't have safe places to get together and exchange support while being able to remain in their own homes.

See while I agree that the child's welfare is the only remit of SS at the present time, I don't think it's possible to separate them out that easily. I think a much more holistic approach would be far more effective and achieve better outcomes longer term. In all other areas this sort of multi-factored approach has been taken on board (e.g. co-operation between police, schools and educational establishments) so it seems madness that the one area that can have such a massive effect on a child's wellbeing - their parent - is left out. Sometimes the best solution for the child is to focus on the best solution for the parent.

[glendathegoodwitch]

i work on a maternity ward and have annual domestic abuse training - until my first day on this course i was always shocked by how these women can stay in these relationships and how can they not get out for the sake of their children

after my course i totally understand why - because these men play serious mind games with these women putting the blame onto them and usually threatening them that they will never get away - u just have to google domestic abuse murders to see how many cases there are of women leaving and then being murdered. these men are bloody evil - ive met a couple and had experience of newborn babies being taken by foster mums because SS have told mum if they go back to him they cannot have the baby and these women are brainwashed into believing the men 'wont happen again' 'its your fault you didnt get tea ready in time' 'im so sorry'

it really is heartbreaking and i wont ever judge a woman for staying in a violent relationship its the man i judge!!!

in regards to your friend - she sounds like she has a crap social worker can she not ask for someone else??

surely her counsellor can back her up and be on side aswell as someone from the school???

the longer a woman is away from the abuser the more she will realise that thats not normal life and she's not to blame and she is a survivor

i wish her and her son luck xx

[springydaffs]

I have a few friends who have done a SW MA but their degree was not related. They studied SW for two years plus placement and are now qualified SWs.

I agree sunshine. Sorry you had a shit time too btw. I have a friend whose children were taken away by SS and one SW she saw said there was no way it would go that way in Sweden (I think it was). It would be interesting to see how the rest of the civilised world does it. imo there is a lot of mother-hate out there in professions that are responsible for chldren's care.

[inatrance]

Thank you for the replies, yours in particular Sunshine, i totally agree with everything you said. It still staggers me that so many people see it as entirely the woman's responsibility to leave and not the man's responsibility to stop abusing. It's not just about the physical abuse, abusers brainwash their victims into believing that they DON'T have a choice but to stay. The threats and intimidation from an abuser work!! My friend has been a victim of daily mental cruelty, repeatedly raped, beaten and humiliated and is quite frankly extremely traumatised by years of this hell. The threat that he would take their son away to her was the worst thing she could imagine. He has kept her locked into this status quo by keeping her drinking, it makes controlling her so much easier.

After today I despair of ss and can see why so many women and children end up dead at the hands of abusive men. It seems that if you are a drunk you deserve to be beaten and abused and that a mother who drinks to try to numb the pain of a life of abuse is deemed more of a threat to a child than the father who drinks and beats his p and mentally abuses his child. Why is his drinking not seen as a threat when he flips and becomes violent when he drinks??

The school family support worker has tried to make her concerns known to ss about the serious risk presented by the decision to place the son with his father but they don't seem to care. She knows that this man is a danger, as do the D&A support workers and Womens Aid and ALL have expressed concern at this decision but apparently it doesn't matter.

I have also spoke to a sw today who said that just because a man is a violent drunk who beats his wife it doesn't mean he will hurt his child.(!!!) It doesn't matter that there are professionals involved who see him as a risk, ss have decided to place a child in his care anyway.

It seems that it will take for something dreadful to happen before anyone will listen. I and everyone who knows what he is capable of is terrified of what may happen to that child before he is removed from his father he is terrified of. I just hope the sw's involved can live with themselves if he ends up dead or hurt.

Even if he doesn't physically hurt him he will abuse him mentally and use him to manipulate my friend. He has already started, when my friend spoke to her son on the phone this morning he told her that his Dad had promised to stop drinking and being nasty and that if she drops the charges they can come home. This is what she is up against and it has only just begun.

[inatrance]

Also my friend's parents, sister and brother have all said that they are happy to care for the child until his mum is capable but apparently his violent alcoholic father is a better choice.

Words fail me.

[cestlavielife]

it is true that violence to the mother does not always mean the father willnot be given care of the child

your friend has reported the violence now right, so it will be looked into.
she needs to be seen to be actively seeking support for her drink problem, now they separated.
she needs to get a good solciitor and appply for contact with her son, even if supervised in a contact centre

unless the partner held her down and forced her to drink, then she did have some choice in the matter - tho no it doesnt excuse violence from him .

but to fight for her DS she needs to be absoutely sober and show she getting all support she needs - and yes she needs to be strong about not having the P back.

her famly members can also ask to meet with SS to see about getting residence or shared residence so your friend can see child more easily .

SS can set up family group conference to get all involved - but first the issue of her report of his violence needs to be processed thru thesystem;

she needs to be talking to her alcohol adviser etc and she needs to speak to womens aid/legal advice about next steps to see her son

she needs to be clear that it is over with the dad and she will have nothing more to do with him.