Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Social Services punish mothers for DV

340 replies

SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 00:18

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 Angry 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 Sad
Surely if the man is known to be abusive, you take steps to remove him from the home????

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:39

WhyHavePets Yes I see that, but what I'm having trouble with is the way the abuse is seen as something separate. The police deal with the abuser and SS deal with the children. It doesn't work as well as it should and it results in scenarios where the mother is told she is responsible for the abuser's behaviour.
There needs to be more cooperation between the police and SS or even a separate law or something in place for a situation like this.

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:40

She is not responsible for the abuser's behaviour, but she is responsible for herself and any minors in her care. By not acting in their best interests, she is failing.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:41

no teh mother isn't told she is responsible fro teh abuser's behaviour. she is responsible for not protecting her children from teh abuser.

allowing your children to witness abuse, is in itself abuse. the mother has ab obligation to prevent taht happeneing if she knows her partner is violent.

teh abuser has an obligation to stop abusing.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:42

i agree that there needs to be more co-operation between police and SS.

but SS do not remove chidlren to punish anyone.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:42

I remember for the Baby P case, a special law had been brough in specifically for a situation where there was more than one adult involved in the abuse, because in the past the adults had all blamed each other for the death of a child, but this new law mean that the adults in the house couldn't do that anymore

I think there needs to be a new law, something that stops the abuser from being allowed to continue to live with children. There is something lacking right now in the law

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:44

the only way you can stop an abuser living with children is to remove the children. SS cannot force someone out of their own home. if teh abuser will not leave the home then the other parent has a duty to remove the children. if tehy dont, SS must intervene for teh safety of teh children.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:44

I just can't get my head around the fact that a woman, who is probably frightened of leaving, is told that she is responsible to stop the abuser, when what should happen is that the power that be should immediately remove the abuser> there needs to be a law that allows SS to identify an abuser and focus on him in their investigations
The onus cannot be on the victim

OP posts:
WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:45

What GC said. I have never yet heard of a case where the abused was told they were responsible for the abusers behaviour, only that they were told they were responsible for their dc safety.

Like I said I can see where you are coming from, yes the system could be better. However, in the end, there is far more ability to protect the chidren than there is to do anything else and, in a flawed system, this is a good thing.

Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:45

Children for whom abuse, and the witnessing of it is the norm frequently grow up to become abusers or victims.
By not acting to counter this, the next generation is being formed.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:45

SS can't force someone out of their home. That is a problem.
THis is where a new law needs to come in> There is no reason whatsoever why an abuser should not be forced to leave the family home

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:46

Back to evidence again, and building a case against an aggressor.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:48

Oh GOD, GC, the reason I'm posting this is because I think the abuser should be forced out of the home, precisely to stop the next generation from having to witness abuse

OP posts:
ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:48

it isn't SS job to remove abusers though, it is their job to protect children.

if a man owns his house and his wife wont press cahrges to have him arrested and removed then he has every right to remain in that house. SS have a duty to protect teh children that live there. they cannot force him to leave so they must remove the children.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:50

santasackura, you are trying to make thsi a SS issue when it is a police issue.

SS are there to protect children, not to carry out the law.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:50

GOblinchild, The system is flawed. Do you have any suggestions on how it could be more efficient? Collecting evidence, building a case, it all takes time. Removing the abuser immediately would be most efficient.

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:50

But the way that our laws work is evidence-based. So you can't just throw someone out of their home without a good case.
And you can't build a good case without the full cooperation of the victim. Or if they retract claims.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 01:51

"The system is flawed"

this has been known for a long time and people have been trying to change it for a long time.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:52

Ilove WHy is removing an abuser and protecting children mutually exclusive? IT's not. It's mutually inclusive. By removing an abuser SS (or whoever) will be doing their duty to protect children.
I'm not trying to make it a SS issue, or a police issue. I think the system is failing mothers, specifically victims of DV, and by default, children. I am trying to establish what could be done

OP posts:
beijingaling · 21/12/2010 01:53

It makes me shudder the idea of SS being able to force parents out of their homes. As others have said they have a very different remit. It would piss all over our justice system to remove parents without a trial or innocent until proven guilty or what have you.

A parents first duty is to their child. If you wont accept that duty because you would rather keep the abusive partner then yes your kids should be removed.

It can be a positive threat though. A friend of mine had a bad abusive relationship. Kids weren't ever touched but she was frequently. She always said she never understood women who stayed with abusive men and yet there she was being strangled and beaten in front of her children and felt unable to get rid of him. When did this change? When a policewoman sat her down and said "we are going to involve SS and they will take your children away as it is affecting (effecting??) their behavior."

He was out the house the next day.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:54

Ilove "this has been known for a long time and people have been trying to change it for a long time."

that sounds interesting. So is it generally understood that there is something not quite right about the way all of this works?

OP posts:
Goblinchild · 21/12/2010 01:56

Sakura, I'm not looking for a fight, or to points score. I know you are a highly academic and passionate advocate of women's rights, but I have to ask.
Do you have regular, first-hand contact with victims of DV, women or children?
I find that having seen signs of abuse on children, listening to their stories, watching them flinch in class, handling outbursts of frustration and aggression all makes me less logical and more single-minded about the need for the protection and safety of children to be prioritised over the needs of the adults.
If I didn't have that long history of first-hand experience, I might be able to be more dispassionate and analytical.

WhyHavePets · 21/12/2010 01:57

Of course it is accepted that the system is not perfect - although you would be hard pressed to find a system that is perfect. By nature this is always going to be very hard to balance.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 01:59

GoblinChild Put it this way, I have seen DV first hand, although not in an institutional setting, and not any more

OP posts:
TheBossofMe · 21/12/2010 01:59

You can remove an wife abuser from the home - but that requires the wife to get a restraining order. If the wife won't do this, then she is putting her children in a situation where they witness the abuse (psych abuse) or potentially even become physical abuse victims themselves. Either way, if she won't protect her children, someone has to.

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 21/12/2010 02:02

"So is it generally understood that there is something not quite right about the way all of this works?"

of course it is. why do you think there is even a need for feminists? the law as a hwole is biased in favour of men. but teh specific issue you raised isn't a feminist issue. SS don't aim to punish women, they aim to protect children.

and NO, SS should not have the authority to evict people from tehir homes, teh police are stretched enough trying to get through all teh red tape taht requires, SS would need huge financial investment to be anywhere near the same position to be able to do it. and what would be teh point when they police are already equipped to do it?