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????

As to why the children are removed and not the abuser, it's because the state cannot remove mentally competent adults from their homes unless they have committed a crime. The state cannot forcibily remove a (childfree) victim of DV from her abuser if she won't go because the state recognises that it is her choice to stay: the state also recognises that children are not able to choose for themselves whether to go or stay and, where they are in danger and unprotected, the state will act to protect them.
But the state does have the power to remove an abuser from the home and keep him out as long as the abuse victim reports the abuse. It's perfectly possible to get injunctions, occupation orders etc to keep a violent man out of his former home and have him arrested if he comes within 50 yards of it. It's just that this can't be done without the consent of the victim.

It's because all of our laws are based on ownership and property and things.

If they were being written now from scratch it would be perfectly obvious that the way it works at the moment is completely illogical.

Dittany - in response to your post to me.

Yes I understand DV from a feminist perspective. However where a woman does not protect her child, or is unable to then the welfare of the child must come first.

I don't see how that is complicated to be honest. Yes support women to leave but if they return or don't leave what other choice is there for social services if they children are at risk?

I also believe the feminist perspective on DV has had a massive influence on services in recent years and quite rightly. There is clearly a long long way to go and those working in the area can only operate with facilities and resources as they stand.

BTW dittany I was trying to be helpful to those people who maybe didn't understand the full picture of the feminist model of DV - 'like we didn't already' (understand)

I was not being patronising.

I do think however there is a high degree of naivety amongst some on what CAN be done currently.

I won't bother posting again.

I'm sorry Fifi, I remain to be convinced that the massive emotional damage from being taken away from a parent is less than the damage caused by being raised in an abusive home. Children in care have the worst outcomes of all.

well that just betrays your ignorance I'm afraid and undermines your credibility.

"I remain to be convinced that the massive emotional damage from being taken away from a parent is less than the damage caused by being raised in an abusive home. Children in care have the worst outcomes of all."

I have long ago left the the thread, but had to come back on. Am truly, truly shocked by that, dittany.

Children in care have the worst outcomes of all; this is partly because they have been removed from abuse. SS don't go around plucking happy children from stable homes and messing them up. The care system is woefully inadequate and needs reform, but to say that children in care have worse outcomes purely because they are in care and to ignore the reason they are there as a factor is naive at best.

This whole thread has been based on the premise that SS remove children as a punitive measure. It's a premise which is deeply, deeply flawed.

I'm sure I will be told that I have no right to post now, and that this is not what the thread is about, but I have been staggered by some of the views on this thread. Staggered.

x post eric.

Is it really an absolute certainty that a child will be worse off in a home where the mother is being abused and keeps it away from the child as much as she can, than in care, removed from home and non abusive mother? I don't see how that can be a certainty, I really don't.

I still think that many of us are talking about different situations. The OP was about a situation where a woman is being abused by her partner, the children are not being abused, the woman wants out. It isn't about children being directly abused themselves, or situations where both parents are abusing each other. Or about cases where women won't leave even after being given the utmost support and assistance. I really think that many of us are talking at cross purposes.

From a theoretical/logical perspective, it makes no sense that some members of a family can be removed and not others. It really makes no sense. If our society was being redone from scratch the law would not put the onus on victims to bear responsibility and have their lives utterly disrupted while the criminal is free to continue as normal.

Also it's a shame that there are "sides" here - I mean no-one on this thread seriously thinks that anyone else on the thread wants children left in danger, to say otherwise is just a bit silly TBH.

It's a question of how things are - how things could be improved (some great ideas earlier) - and for me the fact that when you think about it logically, what happens at the moment is completely bloody ridiculous.

Not all care is substandard, in fact most of it is exceptional. These children arrive damaged - by abuse, substance abuse of their parents or lack of care by those parents, that includes remaining in an abusive household

In my experience, SS do their upmost to keep children with their parents. If either parent refuses to do the best for their children, then those parents should not be parenting them

I have a friend that will not leave an abusive relationship. Her children from her first marriage have all moved out and will no longer speak to her. She owns the house, he has no stake in it. She earns a fantastic wage (he unemployed) Neighbours constantly call the police but she will not press charges. He left her for 3 months, she begged him to come back. Friends are now giving up on her. Her children are damaged - they treat her with no respect (all under 8 years old) She will not leave him. If SS were to take her children, I would think it was the right thing

"You think children from happy homes would have good outcomes in the care system Tethers, because I think you are mistaken."

This is not what I said dittany- it is impossible to know whether the terrible outcomes for children in care are due solely to the care system or solely to the abuse they have suffered or (more likely) a combination of both unless you take children from happy, loving, stable homes and place them in care and measure the results. This is obviously not an option.

To assume that the poor outcomes are due solely to the care system, ignoring the circumstances that led to being in care -as you were- is naive.

Is it the case that if a man abuses a cat he is prosecuted? The case doesn't rely on the cat pressing charges or giving evidence against the abuser. Why doesn't the same happen if a man abuses a woman? As santasakura and dittany have said, why can't the man be prosecuted if the situation is grave enough to remove the children? Why is it acceptable to allow the abuse to continue and for the children to be removed?

Because unlike a cat what the victim says carries weight, so if they don't want to prosecute you cannot force them too they are adults.

Also the cat is used as evidence so support is provided if a victim does not give support (since they are normally the only actual witness/and would have the physical evidence of the violence on them as bruises etc) what can you use in court?

Children are similar that because they are not adults people have to step in for them as they have no capability of leaving or capable of understanding they are being abused, which is why less is needed to remove them than what would be needed to convict a person.

But if social services have the power to remove children then they must have evidence. Why isn't that evidence enough?

We sometimes read that SS has the power to remove new born babies from their mothers where the mothers have low IQs, as in the recent case in Spain, where teh Spanish authorities have ruled that the mother should be allowed to keep her child. If they have this amount of power, then how come they do not have enough power to prosecute an abuser if they feel it serious enough to remove the children?

People can be prosecuted for speeding and for not paying their TV licences and yet abuse is allowed to continue, as long as children are removed. It does seem topsy-turvy.

SS have to protect the children, and if the abused parent does not take steps to do so, they will, regardless of gender.

A relative of mine was being abused by his partner. SS had been involved in her life for some time before he got with her (she had 3 children with her Ex). When they realised the abuse was going on they took the children (they came to stay with my family). The parents attended courses and the children were returned. The abuse started up again and in order to keep the children he had to leave. SS supported his claim for residency of all 5 children and he got it. He was told that should they re-start their relationship SS would once again get involved. They are not back together, but she does get visitation.

SS are not in the business of punishing anyone. They try to protect kids and it didn't matter who was doing the abusing so I cannot see that this is a feminist issue.

He would never go to the police over the abuse.

I might be asking a really obvious and stupid question but if the consensus is that DV is also child abuse. Why don't abusers get charged with DV and child abuse?

Surely the police will then have the onus to investigate the crime from the woman and child's point of view?

I mean the investigation and procecution of child abuse doesn't normally have a reliable witness statements, etc. Am I missing something?

I think I understand Sakura's point perfectly to be honest. Everyone agrees that child abuse is taking place but only in some vaguey wishy washy kinda way but not in the proper legal sense?

The result is what to make women leave their homes (which for of us is our biggest asset), their jobs (unless the assumption is that is isn't important), support networks. This is because legal prosecution is considered more weighty as someone's 'liberty' is at risk? Does anyone not see the irony?

So yes, women are being punished by depriving them of their liberty to safeguard the abusers freedom actually!

SS don't have power over adults you have confused what the SS do and what the police do. SS is there for the children that is their purpose they get involved in situations where children are at risk, the taking away of children is the very last resort they really don't want that.

It's all about the victim wanting to prosecute in your 2 examples the offended party pursues prosecution.

Ultimately the children can be returned when the situation is under control it can be a 'better safe than sorry' approach. However the law cannot cannot just take people and incarcerate them in the same way they are bound by proof/evidence something they rely on the victim heavily for.

But don't the police rely on evidence from SS in order to make prosecutions? Shouldn't the evidence that SS has that abuse is taking place and that therefore children need to be removed, enough evidence to make the police carry out a prosecution?

The difference is that SS do not discount any evidence they listen to neighbours hearsay, go by what the couple say and by what they see etc. They do not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the courts do. Also the law recognises an adults decision if a victim does want to prosecute then all evidence the SS has plus the victim themselves can be used.

Yes I understand what you are saying. It looks like the standard of evidence needed to prosecute for abuse is higher than the standard of evidence needed for SS.

But couldn't ASBOs or something similar be created for DV so that the standard of evidence would be lower, so that action could still be taken?