A mother on the run

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

Dittany I don't think there is anything to be gained from a slanging match with chipkid, she/he? is trying to put a case forward.

If you don't like it then fine, obviously something has struck a cord to upset you, but please don't turn a very interesting debate into a vicious tit -for-tat, throw you weight behind a resoned arguement as I know you can having seen it before!

You have some good points there Dittany- maybe chipkid will be back later with some more info

xenia-i totally agree with you.in extreme cases obviously the child must be removed for his/her safety,however,often the psychological damage has already been done by the time ss get involved.

freckle-women who want to stay but without the violence are just in the early stages.they are the women who will later become those who want out.most men who attend anger management etc are just going along with it because they have to.the more intelligent ones will manage to pull the wool over the eyes of well-meaning but slightly naive support staff like yourself.the underlying issues are with the way society in general views women,not with individual men,so trying to rehabilitate perpetrators of DV is a waste of time and money at this time IMO.

thanks bb-but I am away from this-cannot be bothered to explain it again. I have enjoyed discussing this with you-It is always interesting to see how a system is perceived from the outside when you work within it.

That is not the view of the vast majority of people who deal with DV (that trying to rehabilitate perpetrators is a waste of time and money) and many of these people have been victims of DV themselves.

I do find it slightly amusing that you are prepared to label me "well-meaning but slightly naive", when your own stance is so absolutely blinkered with prison being the only solution.

There are a number of ways of dealing with perpetrators of DV. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but the effort has to be made to rehabilitate otherwise you are just setting them up to repeat the behaviour either with the original victim or with another one.

Well posted Freckle, AND lovely name btw.

Just to be clear, it is not just domestic violence that is the evil behind many cases; sometimes it is sexual abuse or some other type of situation that makes it unsafe for a child to stay at home with its parents. There are many ways of identifying a child without mentioning names and I can not see how it is in the child's best interests to be identified. The SWs' main concern, and the law's, is for the child's welfare. What a parent may have suffered at the hands of a partner is less relevant; whether that is right or not is another debate but it is worth bearing in mind that an adult is able to take responsibility for his or her actions; a child has no choice but to remain in an abusive situation unless 'rescued'.

But surely Bessie the case can be identified without mentioning specifics such as name/age/location/other identifying factors?

Then any expert witnesses or psychiatrists reports can be challenged & thereby keep up good researched based practice?

We need to know WHERE the care system is falling down (& it surely is) so that the appropriate measures can be taken.This may be re-training, or reallocation of staff, or dismissal if guidlines are breached.

There are people in every walk of life & every profession who abuse their position & get by with shoddy practice, that greatly detracts from the good work done by many of their colleagues. To deny this is being naive.(not you BTW!)

I don't see how expert witness or psychiatric reports can be challenged if the relevant details have not been included. And anyway, who are these busybodies trawling for the reports in the hope that they may be able to challenge them?

Cases are already reported minus identifying details

freckle-my stance is not blinkered,i have the view that men who abuse women should be punished.

yes-some of them can learn to change thier ways,and i genuinely admire men who have managed to do that,but i also know that in reality most of them do not,for whatever reason.and like it or not,many of these men abuse the system,and say they know what they did was wrong etc just to get away with it.

but i dont know why i am bothering,there are far too many do-gooders in this world who dont have a clue,because you can never really have a clue about DV unless youve experienced it yourself.unfortunatley,too many proffesionals who have read a few text books and got a few qualifications think they know better than the victims,who never get listened to.

"Cases are already reported minus identifying details"

Great, where Bessie?

In medicine & nursing if a piece of research is shared that is controversial then it can be challenged & supported or disputed by other experts in that field, thereby leading to open discussion & improvement of standards.

It should be the same in the Family Courts & SW.

Tthe "busybodies trawling for the reports in the hope that they may be able to challenge them" are you me, any other member of the public who is entitled to expect that the best possible service is being provided for the money that we all pay through our taxes!!

Dittany you are soooo right about Meadows/Southall.

Agree about Meadows/Southall. Scary.
And don't quite get why men who commit DV should be better placed to accept rehabilitative strategies than anyone else who commits violent acts. If someone attacks another person in the street and commites GBH, that person is likely to be jailed. If a man commits the same attack on his wife/partner [and it is more likely that such attacks should be sustained and repeated] should he not be jailed also? By all means carry out rehabilitative work in prison, counselling, etc. But can't understand why a man who attacks his partner at home should be treated any differently from a man who attacks a stranger.
[I speak as someone who has experienced DV in a previous relationship]

I don't think anyone is arguing that men who abuse shouldn't be imprisoned. Certainly many should. It's just that there are a variety of ways of dealing with this and imprisonment in itself usually only serves as punishment, which may not be helpful in the long term.

Many sentences which do not involve imprisonment as the main strand are not always an easy option. Many sentences are designed to rehabilitate and punish. Punishment alone is a short-term measure.

i think everyone who commits an imprisonable crime should be rehabilitated as well as punished. Burglars, Drug dealers, Rapists, Paedophiles, etc. I mean it may not always work, but punishment alone rarely changes somebody's behaviour.

Exactly freckle & Ruty- we HAVE to try & change the pattern of behaviours for the sake of any future relationships whether with exisit-ng children or future families.

Punishment yes but we have to TRY & effect some change.

I think this thread has two sub-threads now the DV debate & the Family Court debate!

There have been serious proposals to open the family courts and there is a huge movement for that although I think when I last read it had been set back yet again. Justice has to seen to be done as well as done.

Well, it may not be helpful for the next woman he takes up with because nothing will have been done to address the underlying reasons for his violence.

If you impose a sentence which both punishes and rehabilitates, the long-term effects are more beneficial than punishment alone.

but how many actually are rehabillitated?the trouble with rehab is it assmumes the perpetrator is intelligent enough to learn how to change their ways,probably because these programmes are designed by intelligent,educated people.

the woman who was working with my xh, had been a social worker for 15 years before spending 6 years as a probation officer before starting work with the local DV programme.she said to me after his 3rd rehab-type session,'he's as thick as shit,i cant get through to him,we will support you in getting him out of your home but theres no way he is ever going to change'.i replied 'i know that,i was hoping he would be sent down but no,the courts knew better'

A few bits of info:

The MSbP scandal is not over. There are still people making money out of making false allegations of MSbP.

Reflex Anal Dilation tests are still being done on children and doctors making money out of this. (Cleveland)

Note particularly the case of the "mum on the run" which appeared in the Daily Mail last week. I have reposted Lord Rees-Mogg's article on this on my weblog:
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2008/02/lord-rees-moggs-article-in-mail-on.html

I am not aware of anyone who defends the system in its current state who is not paid as a result of working in it.

It is important to understand that the threat of forced adoption is akin to the threat of bereavement. Threatening a pregnant mother with the forcible (and over time permanent) removal of her child is in my view a contravention of Article 3 of the ECHR - which is a high threshold. It is mental torture and has in circumstances caused mothers to go into early labour on the receipt of paperwork from the local authority.

The system fails in terms of both false positive and false negatives. Actually an adversarial court process is not the best mechanism to deal with these issues. However, the secrecy of the partially corrupt family courts is the prime cause of the unaccountable nature of the system which is why I am hoping to put amendments into a Bill to open up the proceedings retrospectively in March 2008.

I have been told by a social worker about collusion between social workers and "defence" solicitors to undermine parents. Indeed the new public law outline actually undermines the relationship between parents and their solicitors.

Thats before I start on the issue of "mental capacity" and forged court orders being used to remove children.