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 they have started that police now have powers to ban people suspected of abusing a partner from their homes for up to four weeks.

Well its a new thing only coming into place the police will be able to prevent the alleged abuser from having contact with their victim or remaining in the home for 48hrs. And if need be they can get a court order to extend it to 28days even if there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Great, that is a start.

I thought that had been dropped in England, the barring for 4 weeks thing. Maybe it happens in scotland? Certainly I read something like that.

Does anyone on the thread really think that the current approach is logical? It seems that whenever other approaches are talked about in a theoretical way, a lot of people just blankly say "you can't do that" without even considering whether it would be desirable or not.

For instance it is totally illogical that in a household some people (the blameless ones) have no rights to the point that they can be removed from their home. Other people (the abusive ones) have an absolute right to stay put. That is simply not logical. These are all people, it makes no sense that some people have different rights to other people.

I also think it's strange that every suggestion is met by tales of violent alcoholic drug addicted women to justify this policy that the children must be removed. Not all women in DV situations are violent addicts. What about all the ones who aren't who are met with this threat when they are simply trying to do their best in a terrible situation and need support and help.

That is a good start, Salatrix, or at least, it's good that people are thinking in those terms. I was very worried after the first few pages of this thread, when the only thing people could tell me was "The mother comes second " when I have never even once suggested that the mother should be prioritized over the kids.

My point is that it's impossible for me to accept that the blameless ones can be removed from the home, while the perpetrator can stay. I regard this as a loophole in the system, and unfortunately, it is being used as a stick to beat "devious" mothers with: "If you don't flee to a hostel/become homeless/ get the abuser to stop abusing you, we will remove your kids" It's completely illogical, from a humane POV. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the abuser's rights are prioritized over the victims' - both children and mother

There have been some unpleasantly sanctimonious comments on here, justifying threats to the mother (who lets remember is not the abuser and should not be grouped together with him) so it seems to me that social workers need to be educated in the ways that the criminal justice system favours father-abusers, to the detriment of the victims.

I realise SS have limited powers, but that is a loophole that social workers must aim to work on; they should not be defending the ridiculous and illogical status quo.. The notion that because some woman, somewhere, was a drug addict, it means that every mother can be threatened with having her kids taken off her is pervese . And yet that is exactly what the Social workers have been doing on here to defend the status quo.

In Scotland Social Services can apply for an Exclusion Order form the Court. This allows for a named person (an abuser) to be excluded or ejected from the child's home for the purpose of protecting the children. Other conditions can be attached to it too, like powers of arrest, that named person must not go within vicinity of child's school etc.

This would achieve some of what people are asking for above. I am not sure how widespread the use of them is (am sure WA have some stats). However i do know for them to work in a meaningful way women need to be at a point where they are strong enough to support the order and do things like contact the police when the abuser breaches the conditions etc.

That sounds like a great start radio. I think the plans were to extend it to here but there was a hoo-ha and it may have been dropped. Will have a look. They were called "Go orders" in the press.

just another point as well, i would absolutely never condone 'threatening' women. However i do think that you have to be honest and transparent with women too. Honest about the impact that living with an abuser is having upon her children and the possible long term impacts on this. Women are generally motivated by their children's best interests but sometimes they can struggle to focus on their children's needs because their own situation is so overwhelming and difficult. I think it is important that those supporting women don't try and protect women from the impact the abuse is having on their children - i don't think women would want that either. Sometimes people supporting women in abusive situations have to have very difficult conversations with them about their children's welfare and how this can best be served. But i think if you do this from a position of honesty and empathy then you will have the best chance of forming a partnership with the woman, because most women do actually want to do the best they can for their children

here is sometihng. I think the hooha may have been on here! Sounds like they are going to trial them next summer

I wonder if a big part of the problem is that women are not being told that they can get an abuser removed from the home and barred from returning. Occupation orders and non-molestation orders do exist and are available - yet the abuse victims are often told to pack and run, when it is possible to have the abuser, rather than the abused, evicted from the house even if he is the owner of it: the courts IMU see the house as the children's home and prioritize their right to live in it free from violence.
While it might be necessary for a mother to flee with her DC temporarily (eg if the man is very violent) until the occupation order is obtained, she should then be able to move back into the home.
Isn't it also possible, when a couple-relationship has broken down (though not through abuse) but neither party wants to leave the family home, for a court order to be obtained that either compels one to leave or for the home to be sold?

You would think, really, that the authorities would prefer the option of using injunctions to remove the violent man from the home: it is, after all, cheaper for them not to have to pay for a woman and children to stay in a refuge or hostel, or be rehoused. Adult males are low priority on rehousing lists and it's more likely that the abusive man (unless a chaotic addict or alcoholic with no job) will have a high enough income to be able to house himself elsewhere.

SGB, yes I think this thread has shown that some social workers don't even really understand the system. They hadn't heard of those Go-order things, but that wasn't as important as the fact they didn't even see a need for one. INstead of ridiculing me for starting this thread, they should be banging down the doors of the relevant departments, demanding powers in this area, finding out how they can remove the abuser from the home.
It sends chills down my spine that some people would rather sanctimoniously threaten the mother than find out what can be done, in a practical way.
radio thanks for your input. Yes, I have made a distinction between those women who are so wrapped up in the abusive relationship that they can'T see the wood from the trees, and those women who are in fact desperate for the relationship to end but are frightened to leave. These two groups of women can, and should, be approached and treated differently.

For everybody's information.

Thanks.. Again, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the women might be too ground down, or not even have the education levels, or English skills, to understand what an injunction even is >This should all be the focus of the SS,and I personally think it's too much to expect an abused woman to organize it herself in many cases. Again- if there's enough evidence to remove the kids from the house, there's enough evidence to remove the abuser...

"he and she deny it to the police (which they did) then the police cannot press charges"

See I don't buy this. The logic of that, is that murder could never be prosecuted because the murderer denies it and the victim isn't there to claim it and there are no other witnesses. I wonder how hard police, lawyers etc., work with victims of DV to ensure that they don't retract their statements and what practical measures they offer to ensure that that's not the only thing the victim feels they can do.

The most obviously glaring thing to me about all this, is that I think it probably increases the risk of abuse to women and children. If you know that you might have your kids taken away if you report DV, then you just won't report it, will you? So how does that help protect kids? I would be interested to know how many women are influenced not to report, by fear of their children being taken away, I wonder if WA or anyone else has done any research on it.

And - courts should stop ordering contact with violent parents. I understand Sakura's point exactly - for some reason, women cease to be responsible for their children's safety once they split from the abuser and hand the children over to him every two weeks, knowing that she is delivering them into a violent environment. In that case, she doesn't get prosecuted for doing so, does she, she's threatened with prosecution and in some cases, losing care and control of the children to the violent perpetrator, if she doesn't do so. Bit of a rum do, isn't it?