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????

Yes Gigi

"Abuser is not capable of doing so obviously"

Excuse me, have I read this right?
The abuser is not capable of stopping the abuse????
IS that, like, umm, a rapist is not capable of stopping a rape...?
But the victim is??

Sorry, you'll have to clarify that one, thanks

Abuser is not capable of stopping the abuse...

Of all the things I've ever heard...

the abuser does absolutely have a duty not to abuse and therefore endanger his children.
but if he fails in that role then the other parent must take steps to safeguard the child.
if they too fail SS step in.

it is not about victimising women,or allowing men to abuse without guilt, it is about safeguarding children.

Uuuuggghghghg

Because they are an abuser

I am talking about the short term. Of course with intervention and support an abuser can change their behaviour - but really, how many do? And would you recommend a woman stays with an abusive man while he goes through this process? No? So why should we expect children to do so?

Man beats up his partner regularly in front of kids. Social worker/police officer points out this is damaging to woman and children. Man realises error of his ways and stops. Yeah.......fucking whatever. I live in the real world and in the real world abusers don't stop abusing on a dime.

what are you talking about Eric? I know an abuser refuses to stop, that's how they get their kicks.
BUt they need to be removed. I don't care how, but they do

I really am shocked at you describing a woman in this impossible situation as "devious"

GIgantaur, I know it's about safeguarding children, but I am questioning the steps that are taken to safeguard those children.

Some people earlier in the thread (not Eric) have given some good insights into how the system can be changed

Eric, look, it's really obvious you haven't read the thread. You think I'm saying things I'm not and I've already done this to death. Around page 5 most people started to get it, then Reindeer came on with some brilliant suggestions.

It simply cannot be that you know enough about a case to remove the baby from the mother, but cannot remove the abuser.. That is a serious design fault i the system, and the result is that the mother is doubly punished and the abuser gets off scot free
It matters not to me who has this itty bit of power, which form goes in this department.
These men need to be put in jail.
NOw you mentioned a good point, earlier and that was MONEY. SS need funding, perhaps it needs more power. What it does not need is people burying their head in the sand and calling abuse victims "devious"

the lady eric described was no longer in an impossible situation (if i read correctly) she and her baby had been removed from the abuser but she decieved those who were supporting her so that she could return to her abuser.

she had the ability to be free of her abuser but she lied so that she coudl see them.

It is right and proper that we understand and sympathise with why she felt that she had to be with the man that had abused her, but to excuse or ignore that fact woulf be wrong.

I don't think that arguing over the language used is helpfull. there may have been less emotive words available but i don't think that Devious was wrong.

You know what
I have read the thread and you really, really don't get it

The abuser needs to be removed and you don't care how....well if the law cannot remove the abuser then the victim needs to remove the abuser with the support of the law. If the victim does not do that then the law cannot remove him. PROOF is needed.

It simply cannot be that you know enough about a case to remove the baby from the mother, but cannot remove the abuser

But it is. I have explained why. In CP cases we listen to what people say, observe and make conclusions. We look at childrens' behaviour and draw inferences. We build a picture of abuse with information from various sources. We take expert witness views on potential future abuse. In a court of law you need proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is much that is wrong and sexist within the judicial system but the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a pretty basic and inalienable one. Do you really propose we remove it, as a society? Can you imagine how that would look? What would happen?

The changes need to come in the way that abusive men are treated by the criminal justice system. Harsher punishments, effective restraining orders etc. The law is often an ass and on the abuser's side. No doubt there. But to convict someone of a crime you need evidence.

yes, I see that SGM, I'm not pretending I have all the answers. IT's people pretending to have all the answers that brushes these tragedies under the carpet. I said about 2 pages ago that I'm going to refer to SS and the criminal justice system as The Authorities. The Authorities need to have rethink

what this also does not need is people burying their heads in the sand about occasional complicity and poor behaviour/choices by women. simply by token of having a vagina, does not life you beyond reproach. i/e Baby P's mother....... the mother who set up the kidnapping of her daughter..

and don't turn on me as a woman hater/misogynist tool of the patriarchy, i am trying to see things from both sides, whilst i acknowledge abusers aere always in the wrong, it is not unknown for women to occasionally be complicit in abuse of hteir children, either by act or omission

?
complicity exists, I've never denied that.
?

Eric,
there needs to be a third way, a law brought in specifically for this situation, where an abuser can be held for a set amount of time, so the woman can re-group, or indeed flee, if need be.
It's not in their heads that they're in danger if they leave. Of the women who are murdered by their spouses, most are murdered as their spouse guesses they're trying to leave. A sane woman would stay with the abuser at the risk of losing her children.

I agree that harsher sentancing for those who have been bought to court for domestic abuse is a must.

if women saw that complaining about abuse actually got a lengthy sentance then it would be more worth the risk. because let us not be under any illusion here, a phone call to the police is an invitation for a beating.
as is a visit from SS, it is assumed that you have not done your job properly and have somehow "grassed" your abuser.
it is dangerous for a woman to report her abuse. if she could trust that the police would act (police were called numerous times in my relastionship and the responses from the officers were varied. I actually overheard one officer being very nict to xp and telling him "its ok mate, we can tell she's a nutjob. just go and get yourself calm then get your kids out of there" )

if she could feel safe in the knowledge that he would not be released on bail without an alternative address to go to, that they would get speedy court dates, that custodial sentances were issued, that breaches of injunctions were upheld....basically if the legal system upheld the laws that are already in place, THEN women would feel more at ease to report.

the ability to report would drastically reduce the time women spent with an abuser and tehrefore reduce the impact of abuse on teh children.

the removal of children is, imo, a red herring. If a mother refuses to keep her child safe then SS have no option. but if the routes to escape were clearer and less dangerous then far fewer women would reach that point.

To my mind it is not logical that in a household where abuse is occurring, it is possible to remove the children but not the abuser. They are all people, and yet for some reason some people can be taken out and others can't.

I mean it's simply not logical, it's counter-intuitive. That surely isn't the way it ought to be. What it says is that the abuser has more rights than the victim (usually the mother) and the children put together. He has the right to stay in his home, to continue abusing, to almost certainly face no punishment or consequences. (Although of course he may well not want to lose hid partner/children, in reality, despite what he does). But overall the victims are the one who are removed from their homes and in the case of children their schools, have their lives disrupted, away from extended family and their friends etc when they have done nothing wrong. it just doesn't make sense to me.

yes, that's how I see it ISNT.
HOw is it that the innocent people can be taken out, but the perpetrator cannot? how has the system been designed in such a way that this is even a feasible possibility

There should be hostels for abusers, not the abused. Somewhere in the Outer Hebrides.

that would be more logical, notjust , and that's not sarcasm

My post was only semi sarcastic. Where is the logic in reinforcing the unfair power (financial and otherwise) dynamic? Oh....