Social Services punish mothers for DV

[SantasSackura]

Why do they do this?
Why is it that no-one is under any obligation to keep the abuser away from the mother, and yet the mother has a responsibility to keep her children away from the abuser?
The very fact that the authorities need the mother to "prove" she is taking steps to keep the children save show that they believe the husband is abusive/violent. ANd yet it's not him who is hounded or punished.
I'm so at hearing women whose partners are given bail after committing some atrocity against their wife or children, only to do it again as soon as they get back home, and for the mother to be told she is endangering her children.
The law is so backward
Surely if the man is known to be abusive, you take steps to remove him from the home????

children safe

Oh, and what annoys me about it is the Fathers4Justice brigade who act as though fathers need to be treated equally by law.
When it suits them, fathers want to be treated equally; otherwise they're allowed to get away with things that no mother would ever get away with

Can the woman apply for restraining order or do the judges order that the man doesn't go back to his home while on bail? How does the law work in these situations?

not sure, I have just read a thread where a woman suffering from DV has been advised that SS will want to see that she is taking steps to remove her children from the situation, otherwise she will be in trouble

Well there are cases when a woman is choosing to prioritize her abusive partner over her children's wellbeing for a variety of reasons. There have been some worrying threads on here, both from women who are in denial about the extent of the abuse their partners are inflicting on the family, and also from posters whose mothers prioritized keeping the couple-relationship with an abusive man over the children's distress.
Of course, there are also cases of dangerous men being allowed access to their children or the family home with tragic results, but on the whole women who have decided to get rid of an abuser are able to get help and support in doing so from WA, SS, the police and the courts.

Right. I guess in some situations it's when the woman is not reporting the abuse- ie she might talk about it to ss but not call the police when the abuse is happening...don't know how much can ss do if she refuses to report it. Hmmm. Don't know.

yes, I see that SS need to use tough love sometimes-- in order to get a woman to see
But it seems to me that this has become a loophole to beat women with

WTF? This is not a feminist issue! If a person decides to stay with a violent partner they are endangering their children. Gender is not important.

The fact is that usually it is women choosing to return to violent men.

Yes, if a partner is violent then the non-violent one is expected to safegaurd the dc. How on earth is that wrong?

Sorry, re-write "Yes, if a partner is violent then the non-violent one who chooses to return to the relationship is expected to safegaurd the dc. How on earth is that wrong?

I think you are wrong to think that children are removed in order to punish the mother. They are removed to keep them safe.

Not saying there is not an issue here, but the welfare of the children is the driving force, not punishing the mother.

I will post my threads wherever I like, thank you

tethers, I don't think they're being removed in order to punish the mother
I think that the judicial system, and the way it has been set up, is so shite, so patriarchal, that it is possible for a mother to be held responsible for her spouse's DV and for him not to be held responsible for it!!!

Sorry? You can bitter laugh all you like. I did not say that DV is not a feminist issue (although that is a matter of opinion as DV is not solely against women). Also I most certainly did not say you should not post here.

Like it or not returning dc to a violent surrounding is not a feminist issue it is a child protection issue. Luckily SS and other agancies can see that and focus on protecting children.

But the title of your OP is "Social Services punish mothers for DV"

WHat I mean is this:
When it suits the law/fathers the children belong to both parents

When it suits the law/fathers the children belong only to the mother

Fathers are treated so differently to mothers in a DV case, haven't you noticed?

What about the father's responsibility, the abuser's responsibility, to make sure his wife and children are not being beaten? Why don't they pursue that instead?

The same restrictions apply when a father trys to return to a violent mother. The simple fact is that there are far fewer relationships where a father trys to return (with the dc) to a massivly abusive woman so these rules are seen in action far less often. However the fact that they are seen in action less often does not mean that the law is biased, just that the occurance is biased.

Santas an abused person has the right to choose to return to the abuser, it is their right. SS are their to see that, when a person excercises the right to return, the dc are not adversly affected by it.

They are not in a position to pursue a DV case against the abuser, that is not their job it is the job of the police.

Whilst I do see your sentiment you are misguided.

well actually santasackura.

i think you'll find that they remove children from harmful situations. so if that is a woman beating her husband and he is refusing to leave with his children then yes SS will remove the children.

it isn't about punishing women, it is about protecting the children. if a couple put their dcs at risk by being violent or failing to remove the children from the impact of that then SS must step in. it's up to BOTH parents to protect children.

SS cannot remove an adult. the adults are their own responsibility. if a man or woman chooses to stay in a violent relationship there is nothing SS can do, they have no authority over that. how can you not see that?

SS will remove children from an abusive situation. In DV cases where the father is the abuser, if the mother leaves an abusive situation, then they will not take the children as there is no longer an abusive situation. If the mother and father get back together, the abusive situation returns, and the children will be removed.

The father is not able to remove the children from the abusive situation (as he is the abuser), but the mother is.

their - there

I agree 100% with whyhavepets.

And children don't 'belong' to anyone, they are human beings. As a parent, it is your job to keep them safe. If you choose to live with a violent partner, then the children must be removed from that situation. This is not a punishment for anyone.

OP, can you give me an example of a situation like the one you describe in your OP, and explain what you think SS should have done instead of removing the child?

WHyHavePets,
Your what about the menz arguments are irrelevant. IF more mothers abused and murdered their husbands than vice versa we would find that the law would be altered work overwhelmingly in fathers' favour

BUt you are both missing my point

My point is that when it suits the law, the the mothers have a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the children; and once again, we see they have very few rights

Fathers OTOH- well it's all about rights isn't it