How does any of that benefit the siblings of a violent child?
Everything you have said focuses on the well-being of the aggressive member of the family, you have mentioned nothing about giving care for those that have to suffer the abuse. Do they not matter?
Not every violent child is like that because of the (in)actions of the parents. Sometimes there are medical issues - and I’m including mental health here - that are independent of anything the parents may or may not do or have done in the past.
Whilst permanently removing a violent child from the family is rightly the course of last resort, by the time parents are begging for some respite the relationship is clearly at breaking point anyway, and so are the parents.
Social workers intervene where children are at risk. Well, children with a violent sibling are at risk, yet your list of interventions doesn’t seem to include anything that keeps them safe. Expecting non-violent siblings to be removed from the family home to stay with relatives just so they escape the violence is unacceptable - essentially you’re punishing the victims.
So if the non-violent siblings remain in the home with a violent child, what then?
Has anyone ever done any studies into the effects this could have on them, both as children and later, during their adult lives?
Does forcing children to live in a home where violence occurs regularly normalise this for them? Are they at greater risk of ending up in abusive relationships because their formative years were spent in an environment where they either witnessed or received violence and no-one stepped in to give them a break from the assaults?
Yes, stage agencies should help violent children to moderate their behaviour and learn how to fit into family and society, but unless those agencies also give the parents and siblings of those children a break from the violence when they need it, then yes, the state is massively failing them.
I need to be clear here because you have chosen to misinterpret my earlier post. I am criticising the STATE AGENCIES, not the agents of the state. A system which requires private providers to step in is regressive and accessible only where those providers operate and when families have the financial resources to access them. Safety should never be the preserve of only the wealthy or those lucky enough to live in certain locations.
When parents are crying out for some help, for respite care for their child, it is wrong for the state to say it will not help. Respite care is available for the parents of disabled children because the state recognises that 24/7 care is exhausting and can be detrimental to the carer’s health if there is no break. Why does the state not as readily provide the same for parents of violent children? If removing children from the care of their parents for even a short while, say a few weeks, is so detrimental to the parent-child relationship, why are disabled children given respite placements? By your logic respite care shouldn’t be available at all.
As for “…and others who consistently interpret posts about social services to suit their own agenda…”, perhaps you need to look at what you’ve written. “Social services specifically work with children who are at risk, typically (but not always) by the actions or inactions of the parents.” “…it can mean funding for activities for relatives…” Clearly ‘at risk’ doesn’t actually include those who are at risk of violence from their siblings. How does a day trip to the seaside with a group of strangers benefit the siblings of a violent child? What message does it send to them that they cannot have a normal day out with their parents - a day which is free from the threat of violence - because the parent is being ‘supported’ to remain with the violent child? What lovely memories those siblings must have. Photographs of trips organised by SS and others, yet Mum is not in the photos because she wasn’t there. She was at home looking after their attacker and they were expected to be grateful that they were denied the opportunity to have a normal parent-child relationship. They look back and realise their childhood was stolen. All because the state decided the rights of the aggressor outweighed the rights of the victim.