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?

Big assumption that there was no SS involvement with the McCann’s surviving children. We know they weren’t removed. We don’t know what other involvement there may have been - it’s confidential.

OP, as someone who used to work in the child protection sector (legal), I can absolutely promise you there are fuckloads of working class families where there is DV whose children aren’t removed from their care. I agree that there is prejudice against working class parents, but “children are removed from low income families if there is so much of a sniff of somebody returning to an abusive partner” is a total exaggeration because from experience I can think of a fuckkton of cases I’ve been involved with where it hasn’t happened. There may have been a working agreement or some other involvement, but not removal at the mere “sniff” of DV.

Apologies if you feel that comment was an exaggeration, I'm coming from a place of seeing exactly that play out among people I know.

Small town, deprived area, everybody knows everybody.

At the point of writing I know (particularly well) one young-ish mum who has had her 4 children removed because she allowed her ex to have contact. We're not even talking about them getting back together, just contact with the children.

She is a good mother in general, no neglect whatsoever, but she was ordered not to allow contact because the father and his new partner were both violent to each other and there had been police involvement.

Against her better judgement, obviously she should not have done it, she let him have their children overnight.

It's looking as though she will get them back, atleast the older ones, but would somebody like Kate Mccan have the same experience?

Another mum I know has spent the past 10 years meandering purgatory after losing her first and only child to adoption due to domestic violence (against her)

Three other women spring to mind as I'm writing this.

Of course I can only speak about a small (in the grand scheme of things) number of cases I know about personally - but I do know it happens and is definitely not rare.

Unfortunately when it comes to social services it's sometimes a post code lottery IME, and this isn't a 'bashing social services in general' thread as I've had the pleasure of meeting one or two fantastic social workers over the years (and I'm certain there are many more)

Thank you for confirming the prejudice and bias against people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I think it's hugely positive that somebody with your professional background and direct experience will acknowledge that.

I did a cursory search on MN to see whether this topic had been discussed before and came across this comment on one thread which made for sobering reading.

(I am middle class. I have left children (lawfully) in the room whilst going to eat at a centre on holiday abroad. The McCanns did nothing wrong. I don't accept criticism of them or me for that matter.)

The McCanns were interviewed by the S.S. on their return. No further action was taken

In Haringey there are two examples where children were not taken into care with tragic consequences, the most recent one being Peter Connelly.

As for the McCanns, the apologists and the PR machine to deflect blame were a disgrace.

Do you think that was the right outcome in those circumstances?

Do you think a family on a low income living in a rough area would have gotten the same outcome?

Also that insanely rich man - rausing - who concealed his dead wife’s body in their house in london for a longggggg time before falling out of a car driver’s seat when stopped by police…huge drug issues, 4 children, no prison sentence and remarried within two years and back to being a ‘philanthropist’?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kristian_Rausing

A middle class mum would be being forced by the courts /cafcass to send her children to their violent dad because the carcass officer met him and had a "lovely cup of tea" and referred to his MC job, piano and lovely decor. . . And the judge would also approvingly refer to how MC dad was

(I know, I lived it, am also deeply boringly MC so it's not an anti MC thing from me. I'm just shocked how much that blinkered the professionals)

They probably bring out the solicitors and seek out their own therapy/counselling etc. It doesn't really leave SS much of a leg to stand on. TBT No one really has the appetite to remove children from their parents it just costs too much.

I do agree to a certain extent. A lot of it is how well people come across in meetings. If they are well spoken and reasonable they're much more likely to keep their kids than someone panicking and rambling and shouting, even if when the kids are alone with the parent the well spoken one is worse at parenting. Plus I imagine if a celebrity gets into any sort of problem they can throw money at it and get a good lawyer to make the problem go away.

I've found similar in cases of children with autism. The middle class mother I know was able to get an EHCP with full time 1:1 support for her 4 year old starting school. Whereas the two working class mothers with children with more than one father were not. And yet the middle class child with the EHCP was verbal, able to make friends and fully able to participate in school life. The two other children were pretty much non verbal, couldn't interact with other children, had no sense of danger, couldn't sit down and listen to stories etc and were in no way ready for school life. So why were they refused help but the middle class mum who was articulate and able to argue the case for her child got it?

One whole interview for admitted and witnessed child neglect, I've known mums to get far more involvement after completely baseless accusations from an abusive ex!

Also that insanely rich man - rausing - who concealed his dead wife’s body in their house in london for a longggggg time before falling out of a car driver’s seat when stopped by police…huge drug issues, 4 children, no prison sentence and remarried within two years and back to being a ‘philanthropist’?

Donewithrenovating Hans & Eva Rausing’s children had been looked after by his sister for some time before Eva died.
I agree his wealth enabled their severe drug problems.
He was sent to a secure rehabilitation clinic which he was not allowed to leave.
As regards him being a philanthropist - what’s wrong with his giving away money to good causes?

It's a fact of life in the UK that money does make a difference. You aren't wrong to say that there is a perceived difference in treatment because there is. It is just a lot easier to either ignore or take action against those who aren't articulate or lack money. It's less of a challenge.

Public services and support have been made hard to get because of cost. The implicit message is that you have to be on your uppers to rely on this public service and you will be grateful.

Did Thomas Cohen have SS involvement? He admitted that he knew Peaches Geldof was on heroin. He failed to safeguard his children. While I agree with you, from the children's pov, it's middle class children who are being let down, not WC parents being punished. We don't want to go back to the bad old days of children living with DV. You really minimised what the woman in your scenario did.

The reality is that the law was created and designed by the powerful to uphold the powerful. In saying that, I have professional experience of dealing with a DV charity and have worked with women/children across all classes. It is absolutely not true that wc women get their dc removed "at the sniff" of having contact with the abusive partner. Most women get far too many chances before a child is removed.

I can only go by my own experience. I have empathy for the McCanns because of my own story, which, thank god, was played out in the private arena. I don't see things in either/or. I'll explain a short "summary" of my story so you will get where I'm coming from.

Before I go any further, I will say, "The system is needed. The system doesn't work. " It still doesn't. Even though the children's act was rewritten and updated in 2005 (after Victoria Gilcrest case) the problem is the S.W. to implement properly. I know one of the persons involved in the rewriting of it.

I had what is called an "Afluent neglected" childhood, bought up in secret, lies and abuse which is very common even in affluent families.

I grew up and recreated my childhood in adulthood. I was with the ex 16 years. I finally fled cos the ex turned on my eldest (all 4 are by the ex. However, my 3 boys don't see as dad)

We fled the town we lived in. I had to fight for everything on my own, and I begged the system for help. They couldn't afford prevention work, they said. Prevention turned to crisis, mental health breakdown, and you can guess the rest.

It was 9 years of living hell in the aftermath to get my family sorted and back together emotionally in the first 2 years as a single mom fighting for everything on my own. They didn't believe there was abuse 🙄 until I asked them if they thought my children were liars.. they then changed their tune

However, being from an affluent background meant I was educated, knew how to deal with things (my late mom was a retired legal secretary) and the S S hated me because I wasn't the stereo type in the system. I was expected to go away and let them f my kids up more and then send them home to me at 18. Erm, it is not going to happen.

I had/have a great relationship I worked for, with the carers, which is rare. I'm still in touch with two of the carer sets today as friendships grew.

The S.S., the agencies, and the professionals involved are beyond. The spotlighting, highlighting, and expectations beyond extreme and moving of goalposts very few are like me, who managed to get all of my youngsters out of the system and home. In 40 years of caring, one of the carers told me she only knew of one other woman who had done what I did against the odds.

So, I guess in many ways, it's not just background; intellect, come into it, you have to have what I'm told my tenacious, indomitable spirit to stand up and "win" it shouldn't be about win/lose but that's how the system make it. So, background can help. You need more than that.

Even if you are affluent if by circumstances you end up with your children within the care system, you have to be of an indomitable spirit and more to come through it.

All my 4 BTW grown now, in happy relationships, all been through uni, and I'm a Nana, too, and get to help bring the grandchildren up, too. I did happily remarry an amazing man who took on so much for us. He was and is the Dad he didn't have to be to our 4 and Grandpa to our 5.

Yes, I unexpectedly lost my 2nd husband 5 years ago. There will never be anyone else because I was and am truly blessed to meet him.

So, I think if circumstances put your children in the care system, it's almost impossible to get them out of the system.

Do I think that they went easier on the McCans. I don't know. I wasn't there. Yes, their afluency would have meant that they could put things better than a WCP.

However, they made a stupid mistake, as did the others with them and many others before who did the same too as it was common to do on the site as I'm sure it was on others. I expect people still to do so. They have been punished enough. The case is out there for public dissection, and they have to live with it every day.

It's easy to say, "We wouldn't do it." However, there isn't a parent alive who hasn't made a mistake.

My case was one of them taking kids into care that shouldn't be, and they don't take kids in that should be. I was told that if they had done the prevention work, they could have prevented it by the services I did get a full written apology from.

I'm not angry or bitter anymore. I've had a lot of varying therapy over the years (I'm in therapy again with Women's Aid now for a deeper look at childhood stuff)

If you had a clue how much a child being in the care system costs, you would be even more peeved off.

You're talking millions a cross all those involved.

We don't know if the McCans had further visits, but certainly, as they were a couple, affluent, etc. it would have made a difference.

Yes, this is long. Well done if you have made it here. I just wanted to give a broader spectrum of seeing all sides of it

MC pay their way out of a lot of problems that SS otherwise have to get tough about.

Childcare - the most subcontracted out job in the world for a start, plenty of nannies around too - or nanny teams 24:7.

Education - no worries about skipping school when DC at a boarding prep.

Substance abuse - pay for the rehab the NHS fails to provide.

MH issues - see above. Buckets of psychiatrists if you can afford £450 an hour.

I have given a fuller picture in my response to another poster just below your post, replying to me

I certainly did make it to the end and have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you after reading your story.

I don't want to divulge too much of my own personal circumstances as somebody will be along to say I have an agenda, but bloody well done!

The benefits system needs to change and here is why........

This was posted by LangClegsInSpace on another thread.

If you can meet your own housing costs and bills without relying on the state then you have the luxury of forming relationships gradually. You can take your time building trust, you can sleep together as many or few nights as you please, and nobody counts, and you can keep both properties so you have your own home to go back to if it all goes horribly wrong. You can move in together, part or full time, and keep some or all of your finances separate, for a while or permanently. You can take 6 months or 20 years to fully share everything. You can go at the pace of your mutual trust and it's no-one else's business.

Women on benefits are not afforded any of those luxuries. You are either single or in a couple and there is no inbetween. If you are in a couple then you must share your home and all of your finances straight away. If you are single then you must share nothing. Any relationship grey area that normal people enjoy will get you investigated and may result in loss of income, including your rent, and so your home.

Women on benefits are normal women and so have the same relationship aspirations as everyone else but they are in a much more risky and precarious position because the benefit system forces them at an early stage into an all or nothing situation with any potential partner.

It's not that'these womwn have the worst taste in men', it's just that they get stuck with them, having been required to share everything at far too early a stage in their relationship.

This is ahugepart of why women on low incomes are vulnerable.

WPH do not solve this problem directly. Lots of their tenants will still be subject to these BS benefit rules, but by giving women an assured tenancy they provide good additional security. As long as she can meet her rent somehow, and she does not breach her tenancy (e.g. serious antisocial behaviour), then a woman has a secure home for as long as she needs it.

No joint tenancies means that any man who moves in will not have housing rights in her home unless she marries him. She's in a much better position than a woman with a private AST who has at most 6 months security in her home and at least 2 months before being evicted for no reason. If she's a lodger or sofa surfing or whatever she has even fewer rights.

So women on low incomes/benefits dont get to have the luxury of dating and getting to know someone gradually as others do.

This is a very good post.

For full context here is the thread it is from.......

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794878-first-ever-housing-only-for-women?page=1

Yes its excellent @Redfoxs

Maybe if parents took more care of children and stopped having them with unsuitable partners or at least getting to know the people they get pregnant with before having children, then going on to have more children with more unsuitable people and the cycle continues, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation regardless of money or not

Everyone else is to blame when parents don't put children first

I'm a safeguarding lead in a school and sadly you're absolutely correct.

I'm absolutely horrified at some of my colleagues attitudes.

White, middle class women turns up at pick up stinking of booze? Ooo she must have a few glasses of fizz at lunchtime.
Working class woman does the same? It gets flagged up as a concern, do we need to call social care etc etc