Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

152 replies

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 18:20

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?

Dappy is remanded in custody over allegations he attacked girlfriend

The 29-year-old (pictured in 2013) - real name Costas Contostavlos - appeared in custody today after being arrested on Wednesday for allegedly attacking Imani Campbell in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:07

@EldenRing4 Jesus wept! THATS why i also linked the thread that post was from so other posters could see the context.

EldenRing4 · 13/08/2023 00:13

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:07

@EldenRing4 Jesus wept! THATS why i also linked the thread that post was from so other posters could see the context.

That thread was posted in the Sex and Gender board and the entire first page is about transmen, men's role-play fantasies, and lesbians. I got halfway through the second page, saw nothing related to women dating on benefits and gave up.

Jesus wept indeed.

This isn't an academic research paper where people have the time to scroll through loads of obscure references.... was there a particular post among all the pages of gender identity politics that's relevant?

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:14

Yes i posted the relevant post first.

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:16

and im beginning to think i touched a nerve. I suppose seeing the results of what was voted for in the UK over and over can be a trifle uncomfortable.

Original poster
Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:19

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:16

and im beginning to think i touched a nerve. I suppose seeing the results of what was voted for in the UK over and over can be a trifle uncomfortable.

I think you're spot on.

I'm on my way to bed so will sign off on this note..

TORIES OUT! ⌛️

OP posts:
Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 00:21

I might be going slightly off topic but I honestly feel housing insecurity is a root cause of a lot of social issues in this country. I even know educated professionals down south- think teachers and nurses - who have stayed in abusive relationships because they know if they leave they can’t afford their one bed flat alone. I can imagine it’s even worse now with rising energy bills.

I experienced homelessness as both an adult (sofa surfing with friends) and as a child (living in temporary housing/family hostels) and I was always determined to be secure in housing before I had a child of my own and now I’m dating again in my 30s I can see how this causes some discomfort among a certain type of man. They immediately know that I won’t tolerate BS from the jump. Contrast this to single mothers on low income who many men think will be so grateful to have them move in and are often quite entitled about it. So yes I do think the issue is complex. Everyone should be able to afford to live on their own but truth is single people are penalised.

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:24

@Oatycookies sorry to hear you have experienced homelessness

Im child free by choice and a lot of men dont like that either. Fortunately not any of the ones ive dated and had relationships with

MorrisZapp · 13/08/2023 00:24

I don't understand why poorer women can't date either. What is it about the benefits system that prohibits it? In simple terms?

EldenRing4 · 13/08/2023 00:24

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:14

Yes i posted the relevant post first.

The whole 'context' of that thread was about single-sex spaces, not surprising considering where it was posted. Having quickly looked through all the pages the discussion moves on to transwomen, whether male children will be booted out at 18, alms houses, etc etc. You posted the relevant post - but ... there's no context?

I was expecting to see a discussion of how living with a partner affects benefits, I have seen this mentioned on several other threads. And like I said there are literally hundreds of threads on MN where women post their dilemmas about dating while on benefits... lots of knowledgeable on there ... I thought you were linking to one of those.

From what I have seen as long as there's evidence that the partner lives elsewhere and it's not too many days then it's fine. Of course you are right in that there are restrictions, but it doesn't seem to be as dire as you make out.

FWIW the original point WHICH that post was responding too was that the 'all-women' housing soon had men living in them... what is the point here exactly?

Is it that the woman has no childcare, so decides the easiest way is to move men in?

Or that if she visits him she will lost her benefits (unlikely, if she goes to his a couple of nights a week and he does not stay at hers)?

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:26

MorrisZapp its not that they cant date LangClegsInSpace explains this quite clearly

EldenRing4 · 13/08/2023 00:27

MorrisZapp · 13/08/2023 00:24

I don't understand why poorer women can't date either. What is it about the benefits system that prohibits it? In simple terms?

Exactly @JenniferBooth you keep posting the same thing over and over again. If you CBA to actually explain with evidence then fair enough. @MorrisZapp I have done a quick Google which PP is clearly too lazy to do https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/benefits-and-having-someone-stay-over/#:~:text=Having%20someone%20stay%20over%20at,of%203%20nights%20a%20week. This reflects what I have seen on other threads, that the problem is with a partner living with you. It is not, however an issue the other way around... if you stay with a partner... but that is going to a problem for any woman, low income or not, unless she has free babysitters or enough funds to hire one. See what the issue is....?

Benefits: having someone stay | Disability charity Scope UK

People can stay with you, but if the DWP thinks someone has started living with you, they may suspend your benefits.

https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/benefits-and-having-someone-stay-over#:~:text=Having%20someone%20stay%20over%20at,of%203%20nights%20a%20week.

MorrisZapp · 13/08/2023 00:31

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:26

MorrisZapp its not that they cant date LangClegsInSpace explains this quite clearly

What is it then? In a sentence or two?

Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 00:33

JenniferBooth · 13/08/2023 00:24

@Oatycookies sorry to hear you have experienced homelessness

Im child free by choice and a lot of men dont like that either. Fortunately not any of the ones ive dated and had relationships with

Thank you..it’s all good… I’m now happily settled in a lovely flat which I hope to buy next year.

yep they often don’t…I’m glad you’ve managed to swerve those kind of men!

continentallentil · 13/08/2023 00:33

Redfoxs · 12/08/2023 18:36

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.

Show quote history

In my experience that isn’t true OP.

It takes a lot for a first child to be removed. It appeared to me in most cases a lot of effort (SW extra support, courses, at risk programmes) was made to keep the children at home before finally calling it.

With subsequent children it was much quicker mind you.

Walkingtheplank · 13/08/2023 00:34

I'm not sure how any one can deduce that still having one's children at home equals no social services involvement.

I'm not sure why you think hoards of children are taken from working class mothers. There are actually hoards of children living in domestic violence situations. The children deserve better.

You're also saying that middle class parents are favoured/privileged to not have their children taken away in abuse situations - like the children are property that they get to keep. If we pretend to believe that, you're actually saying that middle class children are penalised, are ignored by social services and left in awful circumstances (albeit affluent ones). Are you outraged that middle class children are neglected in this way?

In the same way I suppose we'd also have to assume that if non-white children are more likely to be taken into care, that social services effectively neglect white children.

I find the OP offensive, and ignorant. I just hope that there aren't too many social workers who've see this nonsense. It's a thankless job as it is.

Original poster
Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:49

continentallentil · 13/08/2023 00:33

In my experience that isn’t true OP.

It takes a lot for a first child to be removed. It appeared to me in most cases a lot of effort (SW extra support, courses, at risk programmes) was made to keep the children at home before finally calling it.

With subsequent children it was much quicker mind you.

Show quote history

Well your experience is the polar opposite to my very much lived and direct experience.

My L.A recently underwent an investigation and was found to be wholly inadequate. They were criticised for failing to adequately support some of the most vulnerable in the area. Children were taken into care whom otherwise wouldn't have been, meanwhile other children were left in the care of alcoholics and drug addicts.

I don't want to say where it is as I don't want to out myself but I'm sure if you google the key words the news articles will come up.

I'm not lying, and I'd like to believe that you're not, so I think it's only fair to say that there is a lack of consistency across the UK.

I'm pleased that you saw vulnerable women being given a fair chance and most importantly support, but that's definitely not the case in the L.A I'm talking about.

That's just one L.A though and yet the problem far outreaches one small town in the middle of nowhere.

OP posts:
Original poster
Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:55

Walkingtheplank · 13/08/2023 00:34

I'm not sure how any one can deduce that still having one's children at home equals no social services involvement.

I'm not sure why you think hoards of children are taken from working class mothers. There are actually hoards of children living in domestic violence situations. The children deserve better.

You're also saying that middle class parents are favoured/privileged to not have their children taken away in abuse situations - like the children are property that they get to keep. If we pretend to believe that, you're actually saying that middle class children are penalised, are ignored by social services and left in awful circumstances (albeit affluent ones). Are you outraged that middle class children are neglected in this way?

In the same way I suppose we'd also have to assume that if non-white children are more likely to be taken into care, that social services effectively neglect white children.

I find the OP offensive, and ignorant. I just hope that there aren't too many social workers who've see this nonsense. It's a thankless job as it is.

Well I find you offensive and incredibly ignorant indeed.

I've engaged respectfully throughout the thread and have been more than happy to listen to people who disagree. There is nothing remotely offensive about any of my posts.

Did you conveniently skip past the posters who were agreeing with me from a place of professional experience? Oh, I don't know, like the ex social workers themselves or the school safeguarding lead

OP posts:
YellowBunnies · 13/08/2023 01:05

This absolutely happens. I was left to suffer an extremely abusive childhood because my parents had jobs and a nice house.

And when I have tried to get the support that my disabled children are entitled to I have been met with inappropriate comments from social workers about my car and house being nice and "why should we help you when you have a job? Just pay for it yourself."

They are totally immoral.

telestrations · 13/08/2023 01:15

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.

Excellent post.

I saw this okay out a lot growing up on a council estate. The other side if it is that women with children become the providers of housing for men without their own, so if things don't work out with one they have to find another another and move in as quickly as possible

Walkingtheplank · 13/08/2023 01:16

Redfoxs · 13/08/2023 00:55

Well I find you offensive and incredibly ignorant indeed.

I've engaged respectfully throughout the thread and have been more than happy to listen to people who disagree. There is nothing remotely offensive about any of my posts.

Did you conveniently skip past the posters who were agreeing with me from a place of professional experience? Oh, I don't know, like the ex social workers themselves or the school safeguarding lead

Show quote history

Not as much as you skipped the posts that disagreed with you.

And FYI, I speak from experience of the system.

MagentaMoon · 13/08/2023 01:17

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.

I don't understand this though. Why? This is not my understanding of the rules, not that I've ever claimed benefits so happy to be corrected. But people can be in a relationship and live separately and maintain separate homes and finances while living on benefits as far as I know. Stay at each others' houses regularly if in a relationship and not move in together and no impact on their benefits. I believe this post ^^ is false.

Oatycookies · 13/08/2023 02:34

“I saw this okay out a lot growing up on a council estate. The other side if it is that women with children become the providers of housing for men without their own, so if things don't work out with one they have to find another another and move in as quickly as possible”

🎯 There are literally men who target single mothers for this reason. The minute I see this on a man’s dating profile “likes single mothers “ I swipe left.

MagentaMoon · 13/08/2023 04:04

Okay so those cocklodgers are looking for a house to live in. But why do those women let them move in with them? What's in it for them? They are already getting benefits, their house and living costs paid, and they are putting their existing children at risk by moving random men into their house because....?

Swipe left for the next trending thread