But as far as services are aware it is a moments notice- they get a call from a teenager saying that their mum has hit them and left a bruise and they are scared- this is the first they know of it and they proceed on that basis.
They see a mark on a child who is insisting that their mum is violent- there isn’t any evidence immediately showing that to be untrue except the mum says she didn’t (which they all say), so they take the child for a night while they build a picture of the actual situation.
They do that because the alternative is to leave the child and not know whether there first job the next morning is going to be visiting intensive care because the mum has stabbed the child.
They keep the child safe, they speak to professionals who know the family, they speak to the kid and the mum again and they decide that this is a troubled child with a loving mum. So seeking to back up that belief with a medical, they then try and unite mother and child…
at which point mum says she doesn’t want her back, she does this, says that, mums frightened etc.
So, services suddenly have a much more complex situation than they previously thought and need to deal with it, but in the meantime they don’t have the right to remove the child, the mum doesn’t have the right to give up PR, they don’t have anywhere safe to send the child (because of the total underfunding of services) but they do have a legal duty to safeguard the child- so, with the mum that says she is loving, and evidence shows she probably is, is the best option available for the child in that moment.
Mum then shouts, swears, flip flops about allowing a medical and asks for engagement then refuses engagement and that adds a whole extra layer of complexity to the situation and that means it takes longer for mother or child to get any support.
Children’s social care have a legal duty towards children, and not to impinge or interfere with their parents rights unnecessarily- they don’t have that same duty towards the adults themselves.
That is because historically the focus has been on protecting vulnerable children from dangerous adults and making sure kids can’t be whisked off into care if the SW doesn’t like the look of their parenting style, or they are poor, or immigrants or have special needs or are disabled, all of which used to happen.
You have to bear in mind that the system is based on not repeating atrocities like the 1000’s of children wrongly sent to Australia by SS, and having as few ‘Baby P’ cases as possible.
And in a country where there is basically zero money available for SS, or any of the services that could have stopped the situation the op has escalating to this point, all services are targeted at what is statistically most likely to go badly, and far more children are murdered by their parents than parents are murdered by their children.
The child to parent violence dynamic IS a hole in service provision in all senses- research, statistics, practice guidance, legislation and crucially actual physical resources to access.