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????

"but the solution is not to leave children in abusive situations in order to help the mother"

Shit tethers.. you really thought I meant this

sorry, I didn'T know you were responding to dittany's posts. I thought you were responding to me. This thread is moving V quickly

Children in households where there is DV are seen as being at risk even if not directly victims themselves -this is because of the impact of DV on the children psychologically and emotionally. SS would want to remove a child from this situation if they felt the children couldn't be protected - not sure what's wrong with that tbh.

At the end of the day children can't protect themselves so might end up with a situation where SS remove children if the female in the household is still living with the male abuser. Not fair on the mother you might think but the welfare of the child is paramount and overides concerns about the woman.

Most areas have multi-agency domestic violence arrangments to try and manage these kind of situations. The decisions and outcomes are really more complex than what is suggested by the OP IME.

I don't see why there's got to be an either/or TBH. People are all important, why does anyone have to "come first", and at the moment it really does seem that the mother is left to "come last".

I wonder if we're all talking about different situations here.

ISNT, well quite. WHy don't SS assist in that way? Why do they leave all the donkey work to charities?

fifitot WHy not remove the abuser?

"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."

You see, I don't think it would, ISNT; not from a CP POV, anyway. What you suggest would not guarantee children's safety. All of those things take place once the children are removed with a view to placing the children back home, but those steps need to be taken whilst the children are safe- the only way to ensure this is to take them into care. It is sad, but I can't see that there is another way which doesn't increase the risk to the children's safety.

'Social services don't really give a shit about domestic violence or its effects on families.'

That is not correct in the slightest.

Where possible the authorities work with the mother and the child. Where there is clear evidence of DV and the woman can't or won't leave her partner, the children COULD be removed - depends on what the level of violence is and the risk to the child.

fifi why not remove the man?

There seems to be a mindset that if a man is beating the crap out of his partner, it's down to her to organise everything and raise the money etc and leave the family home with them, and he doesn't have to do anything. Stays at home, no danger of prosecution, no threats of anything. Meanwhile the mother is being threatened with having her children taken away.

It all seems counter-intuitive. It does seem that the mother is being blamed for something that the father is doing.

Tethers a restraining order, arrest without bail? All these things would guarantee the childrens' safety

""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."

You see, I don't think it would, ISNT; not from a CP POV, anyway. What you suggest would not guarantee children's safety. All of those things take place once the children are removed with a view to placing the children back home, but those steps need to be taken whilst the children are safe- the only way to ensure this is to take them into care. It is sad, but I can't see that there is another way which doesn't increase the risk to the children's safety."

Right so saying, here's a safe house, well away from him, here's access to some money to get you on your feet, this is where the children will go to school, here is a non-molestation order, if he comes near you he will go to prison, is putting the children in danger? How?

Why is it not safe for children to be with their mother in a place that is well away from the abuser??? Why must the children be taken into care - with a view to returning them to the family home where the man is presumably still living? I don't get it.

It is better if the abuser is removed BUT if he isn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence or charges being dropped - how can he be?

Therefore you are left to work with the woman to try and empower her to leave - why should she leave her home and posessions etc - it's not an umcomplicated decision. If she stays for whatever reason and you believe the children are at risk then decisions will be made to protect them and it MIGHT mean removing them.

All scenarios like this are complex and dependent upon various factors - hence various organisations trying to work together to achieve the best outcomes.

SS don't leave this work to charities either.There are service level agreements between police, probation, social services, education and women's aid in most authorities which is a recognition of the complexity of the issues in DV cases.

Empower is a joke word in the feminist topic.
WOmen can't be empowerfulized
They need the abuser removed

sorry that was snippy fifitot, don't go, you sound like you know what you're talking about

ISNT - in your last post you describe a scenario where there is a court order in place, the other is living away from the abuser and has access to benefits to live day to day........If that is sustained most social workers would not WANT her to be separate from the kids IME.

Despite what most people think - social workers don't particularly enjoy taking kids into care and it is usually the last resort. However the law is clear that the welfare of the children comes first in any scenario.

fifi it doesn't seem right that the weight of evidence needed to remove children from their home (possibly permanently) is different to the weight of evidence required to remove the abuser.

I think I really need an answer to the question of why the children are removed and not the wife-beater.

Is it basically that SS don't have enough power to do their job properly? So for example, if it was down to SS, they would have the abuser removed from the home, but they simply don't have the authority?

Don't worry I'm not offended. I am an ex probation officer and have managed many cases where DV is involved and sat on many of the multi agency DV panels with other agencies.

The situation is far from perfect but it is better than it was, The use of restraining orders and the like are helpful and more recent tools that can be put into place. Trouble is DV is so endemic that there is really so many complexities for each case.

Santa and ISNT - you are right, the authoriies would like to remove the abuser most of the time but if there isn't the evidence for whatever reason in the criminal sense or to get a civil order in place, they can't. SS have no power to remove adults, only children.

tethers indicated that policies were other than you describe.

I honestly don't see why the non-abusive section of the family can't be helped as a group. The idea that the children must be removed even if the mother is desperate to go too is wrong.

I wonder if we are talking about a range of different situations.

Sakura's OP was talking about quite specific situations, where the woman has done everything she can, brought prosecutions and so on, and men are bailed or released and return, and the women are held responsible.

rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/civil.pdf

This document explains some of the options available under the civil law where the burden of proof isn't has high as in criminal cases.

It seems wrong that the weight of evidence to remove children is different to the weight of evidence to remove an adult.

My guess would be that it comes back to our laws being based around property - so removing children from their home is easier as they don't own it. Taking someone from property that they have a legal right to is a different kettle of fish.

But when you look at it in the cold light of day, it's entirely illogical.

The aim is not to remove the children but they would be removed if seen to be at risk. That decision would overide any attempts at work with the family group but that doesn't mean to say the children would be removed, end of.

I have worked with many women who have left but many who have chosen to stay with the abuser. In the last situation, you have to do what is best for the children.

It isn't fair to women overall but the system is better than it was so at least some progress has been made.

You will see that there are remedies in law to exclude the man from the house - molestation and occupation orders. They can be effective. The woman has to apply for these, not social services.