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:
ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:13

I am not sure that it is fair to say that women who are attacked by men are child abusers. I think that is a very emotive term and to take a woman in that situation, and remove her children because she is abusing them is counter-intuitive. What is wrong with removing the person causing the problems ie the man? Or assisting the family in every way possible to get away?

At the moment it sounds like if a woman reports difficulties she is more often than not presented with this threat of removal of the children. SS have the welfare of the children as their priority but surely that doesn't mean that the welfare of everyone else is completely overlooked? The message keeps coming again and again that SS only care about the children, I have experienced that myself, it's quite a chilling message.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

"I work with children in care. Most of them would return to their abuser in a heartbeat"

But if their mothers haven't abused them then why not? This idea that women who are attacked by men are automatically child abusers is odd.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

I think I must be missing something here.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:14

tethers but why should the mother come last?

scallopsrgreat · 21/12/2010 13:16

Can I ask a question as someone who is unfamiliar with these types of situations.

Does there have to be evidence of DV to remove children from the home?

If so, why is that evidence not used to remove the abuser and charge them rather than remove the children?

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:17

NO, I think you've nailed it ISNT Sad and you've got to the root of what has been bothering me

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:18

I would like an answer to that question Scallops...

But I reckon it will be down to: this department, and this bit of red tape, and person A needs to give the nod to person B and form F needs to be filled first and blah blah...

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:19

I'm talking about their father, ISNT(in 9 out of 10 cases- with some of the children I work with, the mother was the abuser). Sorry, should have made that clear. My point was that a child's desire to return home is not indicative of there being no abuse.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:21

The tragedy is that children still love their abusers as a parent, and that this is often a huge factor in the emotional damage they suffer by being taken into care. They are not able to direct the anger they feel at the abuse towards their abuser, so they direct it towards the care system.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:22

yes mothers do abuse children, but when you think about how much time mothers spend with children compared to fathers, it throws a different light on the issue, but I digress...

This is not the point of the thread, tethers. You're welcome to add your bit, of course, I just don't want you thinking that that is what the thread is about. The thread is about the last 5 posts on here

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:23

Putting the mother second (where she should be) does not involve leaving children in a potentially abusive situation. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is certainly not to risk children's safety. They must come first. Always.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:24

tethers, you've completely missed the point .
Can you answer scallop's question?

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:24

Santa, I have been on this thread from the beginning.

I have answered points as they have arisen.

I don't think it's your place to tell me whether or not I am welcome to 'add my bit', sorry- v v patronising.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:26

I don't know why the evidence is not used to prosecute- this is a police matter, not SS. This was the crux of the thread.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:27

no, what is patronising is your spiel making out that I want to put the mother above the children

"putting the mother second (where she should be) ..."

It is not the point of the thread

Can you answer scallops question, because that is the root of the problem I am talking about

OP posts:
Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:29

you don't know. that's fine, but I think I know, and I think it's dittany's first post on this thread on page one

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:31

I did answer scallops question- wow, Santas, you are being very hostile.

Look at your OP. I am entitled to question what an a solution may look like whereby the children are not relegated to second place. I have not accused you of anything.

I was answering dittany's points. Is that ok with you?

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:33

sorry if I sound hostile, I just don't understand why you are repeatedly insisting that the children come first. IT's as though you think I believe they don't... or something... It's getting my goat

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:34

"and I think it's dittany's first post on this thread on page one"

That's quite possible, but the solution is not to leave children in abusive situations in order to help the mother. That is all I'm saying. I have not seen one workable solution on this thread which does not relegate the children's needs below those of the mother.

tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:35

My responses where entirely to dittany's last few posts, Santas- I am certainly not accusing you of anything.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:35

you again talk about the children not being relegated to second place. What has that got to do with scallop's question? IN other words, what has that got to do with using the evidence of DV to remove the abuser, rather than removing the kids from the victim

OP posts:
ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:35

tethers I read your posts in the light of others on the thread saying that a woman in a DV situation where she was being assaulted but not the children was committing child abuse IYSWIM.

The fact that people who hit children are child abusers is clear, obviously, but I didn't think that was the situation we were talking about. I thought it was to do with what happens when men commit DV against women.

scallops yes there does have to be evidence but the weight of evidence required to remove children is less than the weight of evidence required to prosecute for DV. So there can be enough evidence to take the children away but not to prosecute anyone. And when I put it like that it does sound really stupid.

Original poster
SantasSackura · 21/12/2010 13:36

I'll know a workable solution: Get in the house; get the abuser out

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 21/12/2010 13:37

For the love of god- scallop's question was after my posts about putting the children first, which were in response to dittany's posts.

You are being quite controlling now. It's actually getting my goat.

ISNT · 21/12/2010 13:38

I would have thought a better solution would be to put the part of the family unit that is not abusive first - so in these situations the mother and the children - and assist them in every way possible to get away / get the man away / improve their lives / access counselling / move to a new area / obtain non-molestation orders / whatever they need to do. That would be far more satisfactory surely.