Page 3 | Working class women and DV = kids removed. Celebrities and people with money - no involvement

Redfoxs · 2023-08-12T17:20:33+00:00

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 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?

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:44

Wanda im assuming you posted before reading the thread............<head tilt>

Oatycookies · 12/08/2023 23:46

Reugny · 12/08/2023 19:04

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.

Show quote history

i Used to work in social services and absolutely agree with this re. Racial discrimination.

and the white middle class parents were often awful to deal with, whereas the working class ones were more likely to be humble and make changes to get their children back .

One woman actually said “you can’t do this to me I’m a middle class English woman” they are well aware of the advantageous treatment they generally receive.

Original poster

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 23:47

WandaWonder · 12/08/2023 23:41

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

Are we including middle and upper class people in this sweeping generalisation of "people" then?

I assume not and that you're referring to women on low incomes given the wider context of my OP.

I'm not even going to bother to write what I want to write, I don't much fancy a ban, I'm just going to direct you to JenniferBooth's post a few posts above as it sums up exactly why so many women get stuck with total dickheads.

OP posts:

Affairnot · 12/08/2023 23:49

Name changed from my usual one. 15 years I had a drinking problem and rocked up at A&E drunk and worried I’d taken too much paracetamol. They had my primary aged dcs details and reported me to SS as I’d been in sole charge of them the night before. SS called me a few days later and asked permission to contact the dcs schools. Absolutely not I said. No home visit and a letter a week later I hid and destroyed, I can’t remember the details, I think it was encouraging me to see my GP and contact them for support. If it’s on file somewhere
it’s had no ramifications- enhanced dbs and now work with the council as a consultant- ie they have the same address they wrote to for payroll.
I am posh and in recovery for fourteen years, so great in this case, but they knew I’d been regularly drunk home alone with primary school DCs, very poor mental health and nothing happened. So yes, it’s a playable system.

Yesabsolutely · 12/08/2023 23:49

The McCann family actually didn’t make any decisions for their children’s safety any differently than thousands of other parents in the 90s / 00s .And obviously many did not take the risk!
Many parents could not have anticipated the horrific outcome for Maddie . Now in hindsight it was a risk but not on the radar of many parents.
We stayed on holiday complexes and wandered off after the children were in bed to get a drink etc and I certainly never considered that my kids would be snatched .Regular checks were obviously made incase they had woken up .
Obviously we now cannot believe we took that risk ,but at the time it was normal practice !

Original poster

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 23:49

otherwayup · 12/08/2023 23:42

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

Thank goodness the school have you in your role. You have my total respect. Thank you for seeing things for what they are and not pandering to the, sadly rife, classism that the system is riddled in today.

OP posts:

WandaWonder · 12/08/2023 23:50

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 23:47

Are we including middle and upper class people in this sweeping generalisation of "people" then?

I assume not and that you're referring to women on low incomes given the wider context of my OP.

I'm not even going to bother to write what I want to write, I don't much fancy a ban, I'm just going to direct you to JenniferBooth's post a few posts above as it sums up exactly why so many women get stuck with total dickheads.

Show quote history

I never mentioned class, people have choices and people can justify it anyway they want

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:50

The benefits system needs to change so that working class women on low incomes can have the time to date and get to know someone properly.

Dating should not just be a luxury for middle class and well off women

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:51

I never mentioned class, people have choices and people can justify it anyway they want

Loose translation "i dont want anything to change for working class women in case it costs ME more money"

Lamelie · 12/08/2023 23:52

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:35

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.

Brilliant post.

WandaWonder · 12/08/2023 23:53

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:50

The benefits system needs to change so that working class women on low incomes can have the time to date and get to know someone properly.

Dating should not just be a luxury for middle class and well off women

What on earth? What has benefits got to do with dating? Why is dating a luxury?

Original poster

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 23:55

Oatycookies · 12/08/2023 23:46

i Used to work in social services and absolutely agree with this re. Racial discrimination.

and the white middle class parents were often awful to deal with, whereas the working class ones were more likely to be humble and make changes to get their children back .

One woman actually said “you can’t do this to me I’m a middle class English woman” they are well aware of the advantageous treatment they generally receive.

Show quote history

It's so good to have people like you contributing to the thread. Thank you.

In my experience whenever social services is mentioned in a less than good light people are falling over themselves to belittle the OP and argue against any point being made.

What a relief it is to see people like you and others saying - actually there is a problem.

Racial discrimination is still a huge issue, we only have to look at the findings of the met review for another example of that.

"Institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic"

OP posts:

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:56

@WandaWonder Well others seem to be getting it, Which should lead you to the logical conclusion that whisper it maybe its you!

Oatycookies · 12/08/2023 23:56

WandaWonder · 12/08/2023 23:41

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

This is also a good point but two things can be true.social services inequality still needs to be addressed AND parents need to be more responsible.

id also add not only the issue of having children with new people they barely know but moving random men in when their kids are young which often ends up in some kind of abuse or neglect by the step parent. There was a spate of well publicised child killings within families during the pandemic, and nearly in every single case it was a mother and her boyfriend who wasn’t the father of her child or a dad and his girlfriend who wasn’t the mother of his child.

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:58

Which is why you need to give low income women time to date. So that any red flags the man might be hiding will eventually be shown.

Lamelie · 12/08/2023 23:58

Read the quoted post from Langcleg. My children are all in their 20s, living in house shares or at home. One with a partner. No children. If one of their relationships becomes abusive they’re not trapped. They can come home, retreat to their home with friends. They’re not on joint tenancies. Those are privileges many young women don’t have. It is a luxury.

Affairnot · 13/08/2023 00:00

Lamelie · 12/08/2023 23:58

Read the quoted post from Langcleg. My children are all in their 20s, living in house shares or at home. One with a partner. No children. If one of their relationships becomes abusive they’re not trapped. They can come home, retreat to their home with friends. They’re not on joint tenancies. Those are privileges many young women don’t have. It is a luxury.

Reposting as that was to @WandaWonder explaining why slow dating is a privilege.

Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 00:00

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:58

Which is why you need to give low income women time to date. So that any red flags the man might be hiding will eventually be shown.

Yes it’s a shame some feel tied to and trapped to men also partly due to housing costs.

I actually think a lot of couples with or without kids get stuck with each other because it’s so expensive to live as a single parent. So much change needs to happen in society.

Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 00:00

So expensive to live as a single person

autienotnaughti · 13/08/2023 00:02

Ifeelsuchflutterings · 12/08/2023 18:54

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.

Agree completely

Then theres the other side where parents from lower classes are judged, criticised and berated for struggling.

Baconisdelicious · 13/08/2023 00:03

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

ODFOD. You are utterly clueless. I was with my ex 6 years before getting pregnant. He was great right up to the point he wasn't. His character flaws are not my responsibility. I refuse to take any responsibility for his poor behaviour. And 15 years later I am still single. But don't let your ignorant stereotyping get in the way of your truth, eh?

Original poster

Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:04

WandaWonder · 12/08/2023 23:53

What on earth? What has benefits got to do with dating? Why is dating a luxury?

Show quote history

You haven't bothered to read her posts have you...

OP posts:

EldenRing4 · 13/08/2023 00:04

JenniferBooth · 12/08/2023 23:35

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.

There are plenty of threads on here with women in this exact situation .... as long as they don't move their partner in willy-nilly it's all good? If someone has kids I fail to fathom how they can have a strange man in their house at an 'early stage' or be constantly going off to sleep with their partner.
Also your last paragraph makes no sense - plenty of people on good incomes are on private AST's/lodgers because they can't scrape together a deposit. How is this an issue for low-income women?

I mean I agree there are restrictions but you don't have to live together to be a couple.... bit dramatic to say there's 'no in-between'.

Original poster

Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:06

Baconisdelicious · 13/08/2023 00:03

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

ODFOD. You are utterly clueless. I was with my ex 6 years before getting pregnant. He was great right up to the point he wasn't. His character flaws are not my responsibility. I refuse to take any responsibility for his poor behaviour. And 15 years later I am still single. But don't let your ignorant stereotyping get in the way of your truth, eh?

Well said!

OP posts:

Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 00:06

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 23:55

It's so good to have people like you contributing to the thread. Thank you.

In my experience whenever social services is mentioned in a less than good light people are falling over themselves to belittle the OP and argue against any point being made.

What a relief it is to see people like you and others saying - actually there is a problem.

Racial discrimination is still a huge issue, we only have to look at the findings of the met review for another example of that.

"Institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic"

Show quote history

Yes classicism and racism is rife in social services. There must be research out there to show discrepancies in the way working class people are treated as it’s so blatant.

There will always be a need for social services as a safety net, so even if all homes were pretty harmonious with parents making the best decisions it would still be important to root out the bias and discrimination within this key service.

It’s like when people who say “ the police don’t have to change, POC just need to stop committing crimes” but they’re missing the point. There will always be rule breakers in every demographic, or perceived rule breakers. They must ALL be treated fairly.