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????

The answer to this is that social services should be able to apply for occupation orders on behalf of children. This doesn't require the same level of evidence as a DV conviction as it is not a criminal case.

Social Services should apply for occupation orders on behalf of the children, so that the non-abusive parent and the child stay in the house. The abusive parent is removed. If he breaks the occupation order by returning, he has broken the law and can be charged with that.

If SS really wanted to do what was in the best interests of children, it would gain the right to apply for occupation orders. It is clearly in the children's interest to stay in the home, keep attending the same school which may be their only stability, and remove the abuser from the home. This is a far better option that the upheaval of moving kids into care.

If they have enough evidence to put kids into care, then they have enough evidence for an occupation order. We need to change the law.

yes, if the woman chooses to stay with the abuser then you have to remove the children, but I am talking about a different scenario, although I still don't see why the abuser can't be removed, despite the woman's protests

Thank you Reindeer and fifitot
ANd ISNT, yes I think it's to do with property rights, but there needs to be a new law

And thanks ISNT for getting what I was on about from the get-go

Going out for a bit

I think if social services COULD apply for such orders they would. However it is up to government to change the law not local authorities. Such powers would also be useful where children are being abused, remove the abuser, not the abused. However the likelihood of such power being granted to them is probably nil.

Some people think social workers have too much power as it is so giving them more will go down like a lead balloon.

Essentially, we are asking women, who may not have the education/bravery/English language skills/safety and freedom/understanding to go through the process of gaining an occupation order, and then making sure that occupation order is enforced by informing the police if the abuser turns up.

It makes much more sense that if social services has the level of evidence needed to take kids into care, then they can make the occupation order on behalf of the children. They can then make sure that order is enforced from talking to the kids and/or through speaking to neighbours and the school.

If the order is broken and the abuser returns, then rather than taking the kids off the mother and putting them in care, the abuser could simply be removed and sent to prison for breaking the law as he refused to obey the court's occupation order.

I don't think it would go down like a lead balloon if it was explained that the occupation order step could reduce the number of cases of children removed from their homes/family.

I agree though that it is up to the Government to change the law. Social Services can only walk with the options that are available to them.

ISNT-criminal law requires a higher burden of proof because the potential punishment is more severe (although I have to agree that the punishment for domestic abusers are not heavy enough in many cases). If a Defendant is found guilty of assault (of whatever kind) s/he can be deprived of their liberty.

In actual fact the civil law provides quite an easy way to remove an abuser from the joint home-the victim can apply to a civil court for an emergency occupation and non-molestation order. That can be enforced immediately and granted on the evidence of the victim only. The abuser would be excluded from the home. There would then be a return date when the abuser could be legally represented adn evidence from him/her heard and the matter be decided on a more permanant basis. The problem is that this of course requres the victim to act and give evidence which, for a number of reasons she may not want or be able to do.

I actually think nothing will change until the penalties do. If abusers started being given immediate custodial sentences after the first offence this would give the victims at least some time to receive counselling, get protective measures in place etc, and then be in a place where they would not want to reconcile with the abuser when he got out. I agree that if s/he receives a non-custodial sentence then nothing much is likely to change.

If a solution is to change the law so that Social Services could apply for an occupation order if the mother doesn't, how hard are Social Services departments lobbying central government for such a change in the law? Or for more domestic violence powers in general, for that matter?

The problem with SS applying for occupation orders without the consent of the mother is that the order is highly unlikely to be effective without her cooperation. She needs to want the Order otherwise she will not report its breech. The first the authorities will know about the violent partner being in the home is when the non-violent partner is attacked, by which point it is too late to protect the children from witnessing further violence.

Yes, women should be offered every support to escape violence, but unfortunately, as I frequently see in my line of work, there are mothers who repeatedly place their children in danger by refusing to acknowledge that they are at risk, and by actively working against the authorities who are trying to protect them. Sometimes this is through fear, but other times it is because they prioritise their relationship above their children. If this is the case, where neither parent will protect the child, then they may need to be removed as a last resort.

Often, contact is continued with the abusive parent because the child, despite the abuse, loves the parent. Removing them forcibly from their lives could constitute a bereavement, causing even more emotional damage. Controlled, safe contact is therefore more in the child's interest. Courts however, don't always seem to get the hang of the "safe, controlled" bit. It's also quite difficult to judge on behalf of a young child whether they want contact or not.

Late to the thread but there are a few things I need to comment on -

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

Well Dittany, that's bullshit. Pure offensive bullshit. Local authority budgets for SS are tiny and inadequate and being cut every year. Don't you think social workers are desperate for adequate support for victims of DV, rape, trafficking etc? there isn't the money

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

• MONEY

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

• Believe me, they do. Mothers (and it usually is) are given chance after chance to disentangle from abusive men, and given what limited support that SS can give. If we had adequate budgets we could do so much better. There are isolated cases (too many) like one described above where institutional sexism is clear, from social workers through police to judge, but generally the attitude is to offer support before 'punishment' even going too far at times.

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?

• The evidence is different. What the CPS would require to bring a case would be far more than what SS require. We do not discount hearsay, retracted statements etc, when the whole picture points to abuse. Police/CPS need concrete evidence.

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?

• It makes much more sense that if social services has the level of evidence needed to take kids into care, then they can make the occupation order on behalf of the children.

This would not work! You'd be amazed how devious abused women can be in making contact with their abuser, and facilitating contact between children and abusers. The woman, as resident parent, needs to acknowledge the harm that is being done to her children and take steps off her own back to protect them. Women aren't children, they are adults with agency over their own choices.

SantasSackura, yes you're right in that I wasn't in fear of my life. That wasn't my point.

You called for cooperation between SS and the police in removing abusers from homes. I gave my experiences of SS and the police working together in a child protection case conference as well as an anecdote from a SW I got to know quite well that SS can and does help get abusers out of homes.

Or, to put it another way, you called for something that - in my experience at least - could and/or should already be happening.

Dittany: if I am wrong then I apologise unreservedly but I rather think that you have posted in the past that your father was abusive and you are/were angry with your mother for prioritizing her relationship with him over your wellbeing. If it wasn;t you who posted this then I apologise, as I said - however, more than one poster (on various threads) has expressed anger towards a mother who did not protect DC against an abusive man, because she chose not to, because she considered herself 'in love' with the man, because both she and the abusive man were addicts or alcoholics...
There have been threads on MN from women complaining about a partner's absolutly horrible behaviour both to them and to their DC, but all offers of support and advice on how to get rid of the man have been stonewalled on the grounds that the poster doesn't want to be single/'loves' the man/is worried about what neighbours will say if she throws him out.
There is a great deal of support these days for women who want to be free of an abuser, but there are still some women who will not take it up, who insist that the abuser can be persuaded to change, or that he is not that bad really. In these situations then surely it's right that SS step in to protect the DC.

As a society we have an awful lot of personal freedom and as part of that we have the freedom to live with an abuser should we "wish." I've put wish in quotes because I understand many people feel unable to leave an abuser due to threats or what have you.

Children don't have the same personal freedoms which is why they are removed and not the abuser.

I agree that the standard of evidence for removing a child from a non-abusive parent should be the same as convicting a violent man but as I (and others) said before it takes solid evidence and witness statements and for there to be a victim who will give evidence to convict someone of anything. This is as it should be IMO. I would rather children we're removed earlier from parents and then returned to them if there isn't evidence of abuse than having to wait to satisfy the very important legal codes.

SGB, in the OP, I gave a very specific example of a woman who was well aware of the situation, who wanted to be free of the abuser, and who was being let down by the system with threats that her children would be taken away.

But in the example you mentioned, yes, it is obvious that some women (by far not all) are unaware of their situation. That is what is called survival, or stockholm syndrome, or whatever label you'd like to give it. That is why I do not think it's the victim who should apply for the occupation order, or that the onus should be on the victim to bring charges. I think the authorities should go over the woman's head in such cases.

beijingaling Actually we live under a patriarchal regime, so the "choices" women make have to be looked at withing this context. Women don't actually have that many personal choices.

well-i think theres a bigger picture.
firstly-yes children need to be protected.
having said this though-i feel that women are punished.
not only have they suffered at the hands of the abuser-but then they either have theyre children tooken off them[more punishment]
or they get the man to leave and become a single parent[society doesnt really like single parents either]
the children suffer twice-one when they are in a home where there is abuse-then secondly when they get tooken off theyre mums.
when all this is going on-the woman then has to proove herself!
she has to proove herself and its not her doing the abusing[usually]
instead of punishing the women and children-
we need to find ways to actually help-
like changing the way society sees abused people.
helping abused people change the way they see themselves.
i dont think that abused women are sometimes devious people who need people going round talking to theyre neighbours ect
i feel that a lot of time they are frightened
and have low self esteem.
some of them are frightened of the unknown because abuse is all they have ever known.
lets stop punishing the women and children and properly punish the abuser instead.
a lot of times a restraining order isnt worth a carrot either.
iits the abuser that should be put away-not the children.
as i said-they suffer twice-why is this allowed when the abuser gets off scott free[mostly]

brilliant post, Sparky

[and I loved "isn't worth a carrot" , never heard that before, I shall be using it in future]

im a social worker.

i am also a well documented "survivor" of domestic violance.

I am a bit on the fence tbh.

I understand totally why SS have to take the line they take. for a child to remain inside a home that is experiencing abuse is to abuse that child. an abused mother can do all she can to protect her child and to sheild them from what goes on, but essentially they will be aware and be damaged by it.

BUT when SS came to my home and threatened that my children would be placed on the ARR it put me in danger. they told me that any further complaints would lead to a full investigation and my children placed on the register.
this meant that i no longer cried out for help during the beatings/rapes.

it meant that rather than trying to lock hinm out and calling the police, i activly opened the door when he was drunk. depsite knownig that it would end in violance.

So whilst i agree that SS need to ensure that children are being cared for and are not subjected to the violance. there needs to be a better way of doing it. they need to do more to help the women escape rather than just telling them they need to.

Sakura: I don't think the idea you seem to be peddling of women as all helpless pawns under the patriarchy is at all helpful. We might as well just drown ourselves now if Teh Menz are going to get us whatever we do.
Sometimes women do bad things. Some women are selfish, stupid or cruel. In general, a system where women are helped and supported in getting rid of abusive partners, but children may be removed from a home where there is violence if their mother refuses to address the vioolence and protect them, is one that is working OK. Individual cases may be badly handled, but that is true of every aspect of the law and not a reason to bring in new, badly-formulated laws.

hi Gigantaur,
I read a post of yours (it was on the thread I mentioned in the OP) where you said that SS's threat of taking away your children meant that you were frightened to cry out when he abused you in case people heard. You had to go undercover, and I'm sure the shame increased as well.
That is one example of how targeting the victim-mother can horribly, horribly backfire.

What we are looking at here, is getting SS to focus on, and target the abuser by applying for an occupation order, for example. Or cooperating with the police to remove the abuser from the home and jailing him without bail [that sort of thing]