A mother on the run

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

mm, there are some interesting books on that pan, such as 'woman who love too much'. I do think in some cases it a woman's personality does contribute, but it is a two way thing.

yes chopster, I'd read that one, quite few years ago now, though!! I seem to recall having a sort of antipathy towards it at the time. Invites a relinquishing of personal responsibility, but with a message at least that it doesn't have to be alaways like this.

Of course chopster -that's what Pan meant I think!

Abusive controlling types prey on vulnerable easily mainpulated women who in turn (subconciously or not) choose outwardly "strong" types who later turn violent.

Certainly a two way thing but we need to help both types to come to a more healthy way of having relationships & not everybody will be open to acccepting that.

I had a DV incident with my ex partner it was pretty horrible .My dd was in bed with me he came in drunk went to hit me and hit my dd I did everything right phoned the police got out of the house with her took her to hospital and kept him out of our lives from that moment on.

From the minute I got to the hospital I was treated like scum the doctor threatened to keep my dd in hospital on supervised care .

Then two social workers turned up at my house which I fully expected and hoped they were going to help me instead one who still makes my skin crawl thinking about her basically threatened me with my children she totally walked into my house and treat me like a criminal and all I could think was I did everything right I protected my DC .

The worse thing that happened was about a week after the incident I was shopping and the SW rang she wanted to visit I told her I was on the other side of town and this is exactly what she said to me.

"Get home now or I will take your children and they will be put into foster care"

I went to my local GP instead of home in hysterics and she rang the sw team andgave them a complete mouthful and basicaly defended me to the hilt .
After that I never herad from that SW again and had one more visit and an apology from a diffrent SW.
My blood runs cold though when I thing how that sw abused her position and what would have happened if I hadn't gone to my gp.
What I'm trying to say is that although I was a victim of DV (and this was out of theblue never happened before) and I protected my DD I was made to feel like I was responsible and tbh I would never call the police again if I was in that position again

Sorry for the essay

Oh and i would just like to add my exp got the caes dropped due to a lack of evidence

bb-Again in the area that I practise-collusion between lawyers and social workers is not something I have experienced or heard of. What sases are you referring to regarding collusion?

Oh george don't apologise, thank you for telling us a first hand experience.

I'd like to think it was an isolated incident but sadly it is not. It makes my blood boil that this sort of thing is tolerated, it does NOTHING to help the situation of the majority of good SW's in impossible situations who then encounter (understandable) hostility because of this sort of behaviour.

Clearly this woman's behaviour had been noted or her colleague would not have cone to apologise. I would llike to think she was disciplined and given a verbal warning at very least. These people need re-training in basic communication and interpersonal skills or face the sack. It would not be tolerated in private business.

Chipkid I have been told by reliable sources of at least 2 social workers who have been frustrated by the system whereby they have been asked "to do a deal" by co-ercing (sp?) parents into certain statements. Obviously these are confidential as the SW concerned are frightened they will lose their jobs.

understand the confidentiality point-I am in a similar position in posting on this thread-there is so much that I could say to give a fairer idea of what happens in the family Court system but can only talk generally obviously. Greater transparency would provide a much more balanced view of the system of child protection and the sorts of situations that children really have to be removed from.

So whose lawyers were trying to coerce social workers into saying something about the parents? the parents lawyers? or the local auhtority lawyers?

No t'other way round Chipkid. The SW were trying to get the defence lawyers to bring pressure on the parents in order to get a quick end to the case.

On a personal level I have been told directly by a fairly senior Child SW that
" We don't go to court to lose-we can't it's too expensive" which I find quite chilling.

they may think that bb-heard it said before too-but you know what-they do lose sometimes. There is one court centre in which I practise where the Local Auhtority is routinely critisised and told to go away and think again. Honestly it is not all rubber stamping.

Glad to hear it Chipkid- that's exactly the sort of thing that we ought to be made public.

No details but the fact that the LA have had cases thrown out through lack of evidence etc would maybe make someone sit up & think about the reasons WHY these cases are not being seen so lessons can be learned & practice tightened up.

Similarly in cases where good practice has prevailed, if the case could be freely discussed (with personal details witheld) in SW/family law circles then maybe ideas could be shared for the good of all.

Recently a friend who is a SW had a VERY nasty case and she said the judge had praised her team for their compassion, vigilance and persistance in a certain case. Praise where it was due but THAT bit doesn't get reported either, which is a shame.

Dittany another measured response from you.

I'll try and explain it more fully to you.
I get instructed to represent parents in care cases. I get all the papers. In some cases where there is an extremely long history of attempts to work with the family all to absolutely no avail-where children have suffered extreme harm it is an inevitability that a Judge will conclude that a care Order is the right outcome.
Nothing I or anybody else can say on behalf of the parents is likley to influence the outcome-it cannot change the history.
What then happens is that I go to Court on behalf of these parents and fight their case for them-using whatever positives I can find. the parents give evidence in an attempt to persuade the Judge that all will be different.
In some cases the outcome is inevitable because the parents donot accept any shortcomings and have no intention of parenting in a different way.
That isn't bias on my part-it is just an acceptance that the Judge is likley to agree with the Local Auhtority-based on my judgement of the case.

My judgement is irrelevant-If parents want to fight the Local Auhtority-then that is what we do. My views of the likely outcome of a case in no way interferes with the way in which I present a case.

In answer to your question, yes as part of my job I have to explain to parents what the likley outcome of the case will be-they want to know. What do you think I should do say "no don't worry stick with me and you will be fine-they've got it all wrong?" how is that helpful? If the writing is on the wall they need to be prepared for that. Doesn't mean I don't fight their case for them, doesn't mean I don't sympathise with their position. Doesn't mean that I don't look after their interests.

When I say "often it is their inability to see anything wrong with their past parenting that lends to the view that nothing will change for their children should they remain at home" I am stating a fact. I am not being judgmental-its the reality of the situation. I cannot see where you then go on to find anywhere in my post that I am saying ha there you go then you're crap and you deserve to lose your children. Nor can I see where you then go on to find that in some way I am not representing the parents interests.

I am sure that you will enlighten me with another lengthy rant.

However right that is chipkid I do think most children do better with their parents than their likely outcomes in care homes or even with foster parents.

I also think we should open it all up - I think the damage done by these cases being in the public domain is much less than the damage done by the secrecy.

I hope she manages to live happily abroad and someone campaigns to get her husband released.

But if the mother is incapable of protecting the child/ren then the state must step in. It's not about punishing the mother but providing a safe haven for the children.
Foster parents are closely monitered by ss and most do a fantastic job.

you're not questioning Dittany-you are being unecessarily aggressive.

I am prepared to answer questions-but you don't seem able to ask any without putting your own slant on what I have actually said. I did answer your question you asked "Do you reveal your real thought to your clients or do you keep them to yourself" I have already told you that I do tell them my thoughts on their case and yes I may have to say that a Court would probably think that doing x,y and z was inappropriate.

I am mot in the least concerned about the legal ethics in contributing to this thread-We are talking generally here.

You have read something into a response of mine which isn't there. I am going to leave it at that.

Xenia I agree with you. the care system is not a great place for children who are not capable of being adopted. In some instances you do wonder whether it does more harm than good particularly with older children-but there are some family homes that are just not safe places for children to be for all sorts of reasons.

freckle-have you been in an abusive realtionship?

most women think they want to stay,because they have been worn down and have no self-esteem left(if they had any already).

prison is the answer,because its about punishment,and these men have committed a crime and deserve to be punished.fuck rehab and all the bollocks.very,very few men actually accept what they are doing is wrong and have the desire to change.anger management and the like can work for men who are willing to change,but its just a waste of time for the majority who think that their partner deserved it.

send the man to prison,send the woman to therapy/councelling to address her self-esteem issues and ensure she doesnt take him back when he gets out.thats the answer.

Chipkid - what changes (if any) do you think would make the system better? I'm wary of asking you to become de facto spokeswoman for the legal profession on MN, but I'm genuinely interested. I, obviously, have my own thoughts - but they come from an incontrovertibly biased position.

But it isn't that black and white. I am fortunate in that I have never been in an abusive relationship, but I have worked in the domestic violence field (in a support role) for a number of years.

Some men want to change, some don't or can't because they don't see their behaviour as wrong. Some women want to get out of the relationship altogether, others want to stay but without the violence. Some will get out but go on to other abusive relationships.

Yes, the women need support and education in how to avoid abusive relationships. The men need to be educated in the way to conduct relationships and to accept that violence is absolutely wrong in any circumstance. Prison is not always the answer to this.

Yes, there needs to be an element of punishment, but punishment alone will not address the underlying problems. There are various programmes available to do this. Some are accessible in prison, but only if the sentence is sufficiently long for the offender to be able to access them. Others are available via the probation service if an offender is sentenced to a suspended sentence or some form of community penalty.

I do accept there are some parents who need their children taken away. Just listening to radio 4 talking about a child who died despite being seen 11 times in a short lifespan by professionals. People working in this area are always damned on all sides. I don't know how they can do the work. It must be really hard but I think I would rather the children have no anonymity than have the secrecy. Most cases no one is going to be interested anyway. you won't get loads of journalists in all divorce and family hearings. There isn't the time or interest so I really don't see the problem. It's communist type regimes which have secret justice and I don't like it. There is far too much power given to relatively uneducated social workers without enough checks and balances in the system and too many of these miscarriages of justice cases coming out.

On whether children are better off at home - often they are. I remember my father used to talk about mild child abuse cases (he's a psychiatrist) saying sometimes to be honest the child was better being mildly abused at home than in care. I know it's not very PC to say that but he certainly thought it was so.