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????

1- because there was no evidence. We know she hefted a glass ashtray at his head with the baby in the room because she told us so. If he and she deny it to the police (which they did) then the police cannot press charges. Nobody else saw it. This is quite a basic point that you are missing.

2- I don't despise her, not at all. If I despised her I would be shit at my job, which I'm not.

3- history of care is only relevant as far as it hints to poor boundaries and lack of basic parenting skills which abused children often grow up to have. After all, children only come into care after experiencing abuse.

4- it was reciprocal. Fuck sake Dittany are you so blinkered that you can't conceive of a female abuser? Or a mutually abusive relationship? She battered him more often than he assaulted her. You may not like this, maybe it doesn't fit your worldview, but it's true.

5- no, I was supporting her. Not involved in removing her child.

I'm not missing your "basic" point, Eric.
You are missing mine.
If you know enough about a case to remove a baby from its mother, then you know enough about a case to jail the abuser

The question is, why are babies being removed from mothers, and abusers not being jailed.

the answer is: the system is flawed. if a system is flawed, we should not defend it at its treatment of the victims

If you know enough about a case to remove a baby from its mother, then you know enough about a case to jail the abuser

no you don't

THAT is my point. The legal system insists on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Child protection is a different approach completely. If SWs and courts needed proof beyond reasonable doubt then no children would ever be removed from abusive homes. That's the basic point that you are missing. Are you suggesting a change in the legal system to remove the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt? Seriously?

Dittany, she was a victim. He was emotionally abusive and physically abusive. She was emotionally vulnerable. She also happened to be physically abusive herself. The example is completely relevant. The example was of how SS offered support and interventions and she still chose to find ways to see her abusive partner and keep it from the suthorities, despite knowing that it might lead to the child being removed.

Oh fuck it Dittany, you are a broken record!

From the OED - Devious adjective
1 showing a skilful use of underhand tactics to achieve goals:

Pretty much sums up the mindset of women who continue to see abusive men in secret when they have been told that this jeopardises the safety of their children.

FWIW yes I did attend the CP conferences and I did not recommend registration. This was prior to the extent of the DV being known. No I did not submit anything to court in the care proceedings as I was there to advocate for and support her. Which I did, very well.

Unless of course you're doing the usual BS of blaming women who have been terrorised and controlled by men who sometimes fight back.

Ummmm....no. But believe that if it fits your agenda

The discussion was around SS not offering adequate support to victims of DV. I gave an example where support was offered to both victims/perpetrators. I am bored now....

Eric, I know the situation as it stands now. That is why I began this thread. Because it is flawed . Yes, I am certainly suggesting a change in the legal system because right now it supports abusers

Sakura I would suspect that evidence to remove a child does not require the parents statements or support.

Removal and conviction of an abusing partner can occur without the support of a victim but in reality the cases need the victims cooperation. SS cannot stop women (or men) from taking their abuser back. But they are able to stand in for children and protect them from the choices their parents make.

YAWN

Blinkered, blinkered woman.

I have to say, Eric, you're not showing your profession in a good light. YOu have zero compassion for abused women. You quite forget that it is not the abused woman who is endangering her child, it is the abuser

oh, but men can't help how they behave...

eric, give up now it is a pointless battle.

Fifi, if you understand domestic violence through a feminist lens why on earth are you supporting social services removing children from a woman who hasn't been able to escape from her abuser.

Why should we look at it through any "lens"? why not look at the facts and realities of the case? why does everything have to be scewed with backdrop of "she has a vagina and therefore must be right"?

I have been on both sides of the fence. I can tell you that there are times when a child does need to be removed from a mother because she is incapable of ending the violant relationship. There are times when no amount of support, no amount of facilities available will coax the woman to leave.
yes i understand that this will be down to years of manipulation and abuse, often spaning further back than the actual relatsionship.
I think that that is why the "history of care" is relevant in erics scenario.

And to describe a woman who has mislead those supporting her because she knows what she is doing is wrong, simply to do the very thing she is being supported not to do...is devious.

Sakura - it is not the woman endangering her child but the abuser.

if that is the case then could you explain to me how come Mental health services are often faced with charges when a patient kills? why is it that the police are held accountable when someone who is known to them kills someone?

because they have a duty of care.

A mother has a duty to protect her child. if she fails to protect the child then she is enabling them to be abused.

yes, I agree Gigantaur.
And the point of my thread, well one of the points I've been trying to make through all the din, is that when it suits the authorities, the mother has a duty to protect her child, and the father (apparently) doesn't....
And yet, watch The Authorities do an about turn and piss all over the mother when it comes to fathers' rights

Applauds Gigantaur.

In fact, back to my original point... why does the abuser not have a duty to protect his child by in abstaining from abusing the mother (I'm talking specifically about DV here)
It sounds backward to me. About time someone started questioning the system

Why does the abuser not have a duty to protect his children, by not abusing their mother?

You quite forget that it is not the abused woman who is endangering her child, it is the abuser

Woman is being abused

by extension child is being abused

Parents must protect child from abuse

Abuser is not capable of doing so obviously

Non abuser OR resident parent must take steps to protect children. This can include ending the abusive relationship, or undertaking work to address her own issues, whatever is appropriate. This is the job of the parents. If they cannot or will not do that then SS step in and remove child. This is completely right, as long as the parents are given the right support and interventions to make the changes in the first place before removal, if that is safe for the DCs.