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????

SGB, I know you are on a mission, and you think any woman who lives with a man is weak by default, but this isn't the thread for it, sorry.
This thread is about the way the authorities target the victim, when they should be targeting the abuser

Actually, SGB, you remind me of this American lawyer who dedicated her life to proving that women should be punished as heavily as men, and lobbied for harsher punishments against women-- completely failing to take into account the circumstances that landed them in jail in the first place [murdering a spouse after years of abuse, for example]

the problem at the moment is that if the woman doesn't press chanrges there is nothing anyone can do about the DV.

the police have new powers to press charges themselves but in reality there is little that can be done without her statement.
he gets bailed and returns to the home.

if a woman is refusing to co operate then unfortunately it is in the childs best interests to be removed. as horrible as that seems. And as i say, i have been there so i do understand just how confusing all is.

Unless there is a new law bought out that says the state can intervene and decide who can and cannot live in the family home i am not sure what else can be done.

Sakura: I don't think that any woman who lives with a man is weak. I do think that the social pressure on women to live in couple-relationships with men is something that can contribute to women staying in abusive situations, and would like to see less pressure on people in general to seek and pursue heteromonogamous relationships whether they want to or not.
I think basically you are suggesting that the authorities target victims of domestic violence for some eeeevil patriarchist reasons of their own, when this does not really appear to be the case: DV is (usually) taken much more seriously by the police than it used to be and women are offered help with rehousing, injunctions, etc.

yes, that is what I started this thread for. There needs to be a new law. [But MrsDavidOwen said there already is a new law, but it sounds like not many people know about it yet]

I mentioned earlier in the thread that in the case of Baby P, they were able to use a new law that had been brought in to stop the adults in the house blaming one another. Under this new law, all of the adults in the house had to be held responsible/

I only mention it because it struck me then that reasonably effective laws can be created and put in place when current laws are inadequate. It also struck me that specific laws can be created to cover grey areas.

SGB, it's really obvious you haven't read the thread
I do have a problem with the way mothers and fathers are treated differently when it suits the authorities, and yet equally when it suits them, yes, I do

sorry SGB-i dont agree with you.
the system isnt working ok.
if the system was working ok-how come women go back to theyre abusers time and time again?
how come women sometimes go on to have more abusive realashionships?
how come Queen has written a post and said what she did?
we dont have to bring in new badly formalated laws-we already have them.

but DV is by its ver nature a private issue that is wrapped in secrecy.

in casesof extreme violance there is physical evidence and can be acted upon. but there are the cases of emotional/sexual abuse that is less obvious. these are just as damaging to the children of the household but far less easy for passers by to report.

without the mothers co operation there is nothing to be done.

I think better facilities for abused women is the start. and much more training for social workers!

BUt if the authorities (lets call it The Authorities- I realise SS don't have enough power by themselves) have evidence enough to remove the children from the mother, then they most certainly have evidence enough to jail the abuser

Is it an issue of incompetency? A system flaw? A lack of communication between all the different departments and organizations?

but an abuser can be charged for the offence of common assault/abh/gbh/rape etc.

he may get a fine, even a few weeks in prison. if the mother then takes him back again what more can be done?

There is no law to say you cannot live with whoever you like. abuser or not.

if the threat of losing your children is not enough to make you realise you need to make him leave (if you can) then what will?

The routes for escape need to be clearer and there needs to be far better facilities for those who do leave.

but if someone simply doesn't want to..what can be done?

yes, there are two separate issues: there's the stockholm syndrome women, who will choose their abuser over their children, and then there's the women I mentioned who simply have nowhere to go, or don't have the nouse left to know what to do, or are fearful for their life , who do want to do something, but know he'll be released on bail or out in a few weeks and back to the house again.
I just wanted to vent on what a shocking sham it all is.
There needs to be longer jail terms. I am going to study what Reindeer and fifitot wrote over the last few pages.

ANd yes, better facilities, as you say, and more training for social workers, and the person who made the point earlier, a lot of it all boils down to MONEY
[nobody vote lib dem or tory next time, fgs ]

I think that one thing that would help is that if you are arrested following a domestic incident you are held for 48 hours and not allowed to return to the home for 72 hours.

that way it gives women the chance to get a restriaining/non mol/occupancy order.

or for thenm to arrange alternative accomodation without the fear of him returning midway through the plans to flee.

it gives them that little bit of thinking time. space to breath and evaluate the situation without the fear and manipulation.

yes, if she could have that guaranteed space to think and come to

I also think that happy mother= happy children, which to me means that if you truly care about the children, you will take care of their mother as well and not lump the victim-mother in the same category as the abuser, and tell her she is an abuser and all the rest of it.

That last post was to the people who kept saying "but the children come first" - as if anyone here was saying they didn't . Looking out for the children doesn't mean ostracizing and threatening the mother, does it? Keeping the mother with the children is in the interest of the children.

Unfortunately domestic is so complex it is hard to have a catch all aproach.

I think there is far more sensitivity to it under the law and amongst police and other agencies now then ever but still room for improvement.

The argument that the children MUST come first is actually in law, not just a preference, it is a guiding principle of any agency working with families - so there isn't the space often to consider the other options. FWIW - every dv situation I have seen professionally, all of the agencies involved have worked very hard to protect the women and the children. In probation work for instance there is usually a strong partnership with women's aid who work with the victim while the probation officer works with the abuser to address his behaviour and protect the victim from harm.

It is naive however to think that some women don't mislead or deceive the authorites - some do. Yes we know this is due to their fear, their manipulation etc but as stated some women will go back to the men.

If anyone is interested in understanding dv then google Duluth model - they researched it and set the bar in terms of understanding abuse in the context of power and control of women in a patriarchy if you like. Really useful stuff.

Once again, stop talking about deceit. If the authorities aren't supporting abused women (which they aren't on the whole) then women have to do what is best for themselves and their children without reference to people who are working to undermine them.

Oh Dittany you are quite blinkered. I used the word devious and I stick by that. I'll give you an example shall I? Young mum, history of care. Slightly older boyfriend. Substance misuse. Baby. DV (reciprocal). Interventions offered to both parents, referral to living without violence programmes, referral to substance misuse services, enhanced health visitor service, counselling, etc etc. DV did not stop. Baby was to remain with mum, so dad was made to leave family home. Mum continued to see him as 'she loved him' and although it was an abusive violent relationship and was potentially damaging the baby (emotionally and physically) it was more important to her to keep her relationship. She would take the baby out and leave it with friends so she could go off and see him. She was devious. Baby was removed in the end. I was personally involved in supporting her and saw her all the way through it. She CHOSE her relationship over her child's welbeing. I can understand why and how that happens, but the facts remain.

There seems to be a lack of understanding in your posts about the affects of abuse on a woman's mind. Why wasn't her abuser jailed? that would have given her some space and peace to sort her head out, bond with her baby etc.
Devious is a very nasty word, You sound like you despise the woman you're talking about.