Working class women and DV = kids removed. Celebrities and people with money - no involvement

[Redfoxs]

I've known of multiple women to lose their children to adoption after failing to stay away from an abusive partner. It happens up and down the country all of the time. We all know that.

So why is it when somebody with money is involved, the services don't seem to care?

Case in point.

Dappy from Ndubz. He has a long history of abusing partners going way back to the mother of his eldest children. Multiple arrests, her posting images of her injuries online.

Fast forward to 2017 he's put in prison for attacking a more recent partner. The mother of his youngest children. In the home they share with their then baby daughter. A knife is involved and he needs to be restrainted by 4 members of the public before threatening to stab the police.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4499994/amp/Dappy-remanded-custody-attacked-partner.html

The girlfriend was all over social media calling him a narcissistic psychopath, drug abuser, violent, a danger..

As soon as Ndubz make a comeback she's moved him back in with her and the kids, is accompanying him on the tours, having spats with another woman who he was seeing in the interim and singing his praises as though he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Who is safeguarding those children then?

If this all happened before the fame then those children would have likely been removed long before the incident for which he was imprisoned.

Social services don't always get it right. There have been times I've completely disagreed with them, I am most definitely not advocating for mass forced adoption but come on.. what's with the disparity?

Risk is risk, isn't it?

Does having money in the bank make it less likely that children will suffer emotional (at the very least) harm?

Why is it OK for people with money to abuse drugs and behave in a domestically violent way and their lives go on uninterrupted but your run of the mill working class couple down the road get hauled into court and their children removed.

AIBU?

You're not being unreasonable but this is very much how the world works. Money talks. Rules which apply for mostly average people almost never apply to people with a lot of money. This applies in most situations though probably a lot more galling in the context you describe. Rich people also don't have to wait months and months for medical treatment, nor do they have to book a reservation months ahead for a table in a popular restaurant or whatever.

Thems the breaks, and it increasingly seems people are quite apathetic about it.

How do you no social services haven’t been involved?

Two doctors leaving three preschoolers in a holiday flat in a foreign country to have a meal and get pissed, resulting in one of the children getting abducted - no SS involvement with the surviving children.

Whereas I know of a working class woman who worked nights around her DP's hours so he could look after their baby, not realising he was going to the nearby pub and leaving the baby in her cot until SS came knocking. It took her a bit to shake them off (and yes, she did immediately chuck her DP).

The judge literally used the words "middle class" to describe why my ex H could still see the children despite his unspeakably awful behaviour.

It's grim and unfair and leaves children very vulnerable

They still have custody of them, for a start.

"Bob and Sue" down the road wouldn't have.

I'm from a very working class background in a deprived area and know of plenty of cases where there has been SS involvement and subsequent removal for much less than what was detailed in the newspaper link above.

I know, with complete certainty, that children are removed from low income families if there is so much of a sniff of somebody returning to an abusive partner, nevermind moving them back in and following them around the country on tours.

This is a really good comparison to highlight.

The double standard is appalling.

Two well off parents make an absolutely shit choice to endanger their children which results in the abduction and (presumed) death of one. They return to the UK and have no court case against them for neglect.

Vs

One working class mother goes off to work believing that the babies father is caring for the baby as he should, only to then discover he's negligent and promptly chuck him out, as she should, only to then be dragged through a system and likely traumatised for something that was categorically not her fault.

The disparity really angers me.

I'm so sorry, it's just wrong.

One of my good friends has had to deal with the same, bar the judges comments.

Her ex was abusive and takes cocaine but none of that was a factor in awarding him joint unsupervised contact. I can only assume that is because he has a good job and money (neither of which meant he was any less a nasty piece of work)

I really feel for her having to wave off their DD every weekend as she spends the duration worrying whether he will drive under the influence or Lord knows what else.

You have my complete sympathy.

I do notice in my job that most people who have long term social services involvement are on a low income; I think it comes down to some people being better at hiding it, money for solicitors to put councils off, money to spend on things like nannies which can act as protective factors for people who have substance misuse problems and simple prejudice as well

I would add that I notice this in health professionals attitude to co sleeping; middle class mums are given the advice how to do this safely whereas lower income mums are criticised for it

My mum got away with abusing my in plain sight my entire childhood because she had a decent office job and a nice house

I've been told on MN recently that that wouldn't happen nowadays but I absolutely don't believe it. I think many abused children slip through the nets if their parents are middle class enough.

You see it on the threads from middle class people who do end up dealing with social services as well. they always start off with how they have professional jobs etc as if somehow that means that they can't possibly be abusive and they are outraged that social services could possibly think they are bad parents.

You're absolutely right. Higher levels of education and a professional job also seem to be barriers to intervention.
They don't have the resources to safeguard everyone and prioritise based on stereotypes

I completely agree.

It's blatant classism.

No government led organisation who's sole purpose is to protect the defenceless should have caveats according to income or class.

People on benefits are easy targets and low hanging fruit.

I'm so sorry.

This is exactly it. Voices like yours are so important when it comes to topics like this one.

If it's not bad enough you had to suffer that abuse you are then insulted by people saying it wouldn't happen now, things have changed.

Things haven't changed at all. Social services are still going after the low income families (rightly so in lots of cases I'm sure) meanwhile the children from more "privileged" backgrounds are forgotten about because, well, money.

The stately homes threads are full of people like you, sadly, and I only wish that it was different.

I'm not allowed to go into detail but there is a lot of racial discrimination as well..

SS get shocked if they find they are dealing with well educated black people. These cases don't tend to end up in court even though they make a lot of unreasonable threats.

This makes for interesting reading

https://www.socialworktoday.co.uk/News/Class-and-classism%3A-How-it-affects-social-workers-and-the-people-with-which-they-work

I completely believe it.

@Redfoxs the McCann case is disgusting. They and their friends were all at it, leaving their kids and drinking. Any reasonable friend group would suggest some sort of rota for staying in with other couple's kids sleeping over or whatever. No, people shouldn't expect a predator to be snatching kids out their beds, but the kids were the sort of age where they could wander out and drown in a pool or get lost or turn a hob on with something on top etc.

Indeed.

I can't align myself their attitude at all. The thought of my children being left unattended at that age would spark complete panic. How can you have a good time if you know your children aren't safe?

That is one of many questions the authorities should have been asking upon their return.

'Wine O'clock' with prosecco at 3pm in a sunny garden after school run = middle class frivolity

Can of beer in a high rise after collecting kids from school on summers day = working class 'Alcoholic wasters'

Quite

Such a good point. Hugely unfair and unacceptable

I was referred for asd assessments for my children and provided heaps of support (council funded adaptations and senco support) when they came back positive.

Friends I know who are struggling for the same reason were sent to parenting classes.

Sadly I think I agree with this. I often wonder how many parents would be able to continue to care for their children if they had access to boarding school and holiday clubs...

I had an interesting meeting with my HV whilst pregnant with my first DC when we lived in our old house in the rough part of town. I got a lecture about not shaking the baby if I got angry, I was a bit 🤨 ok, yeah I know. But when we got onto child benefit and I mentioned I was not eligible due to my income (which the HV did not believe at first!) her demeanour completely changed, like somehow I was a more worthy parent due to my income? I noticed a definite shift in attitude.

There was a researcher into domestic violence on the radio one day, he said sadly kids who live through domestic violence that have mc family are more likely to be left with the family and also guards more likely to not push as hard because at least the parents will feed, clothe and educate them, and will be looking to keep up appearances. The other thing is the person being abused is more likely to stay l, and as he was saying less likely to press charges because they won’t want to face being made homeless