@ SabrinnaOfDystopia
"Men affected by dv are more likely to still be financially independent"
Maybe so. But likelihood arguments like yours are deceptive and cruel to individuals.
Is the tiny minority of fathers, in fear of their lives, able to afford to drive themselves and their children to a safe B&B, so that their kids won't get beaten up by mum tonight either, not quite as tiny as the tiny minority of mums in that happy position of minor prosperity, so that those mums don't need refuge places either, to protect mum and kids from being beaten up again by dad? Probably so, if your "more likely" assertion about gendered economics is true. But such likelihood demographic differentials are not a just reason for publicly-funded refuges to have "no men" notices up in their windows, much as landlords once wrote "No blacks, no Irish" on adverts for rented accommodation.
What if all public funding were removed tomorrow from the sex-discriminatory "women's" refuges, so that any publicly funded refuge had to open its doors to domestic violence refugees of either sex, strictly on a basis that was as gender-blind as the Equality Act required, a fair cocktail of "first come, first served" and "greatest need met first", "greatest objectively-assessed risk to life and limb averted first" and "no fleeing families accommodated able to afford to flee to hotels instead" (the means test criterion), and so on? Every relevant factor considered, in fact, except sex-discriminatory inferences about the likelihood of this or that, informed from ideation about gendered ability to use a credit card to shelter in a B&B instead of in the appropriate place of refuge?
Whose agenda would it sabotage, thus to level the playing field, if market forces were allowed determine accurately how many men, and how many women ended up in unisex refuges, the only refuges allowed if the Equality Act were to be enforced, with their children if necessary?
How much better it would be to enforce the already-enacted illegality of sex-discriminatory provision of refuge places, than to tolerate it, based upon vague, hand-waving arguments like yours, about dads with children whose mum is a bully allegedly being "more likely" to be able to afford to carry themselves and their children into the expensive commercial sector of refuge provision.
"less likely to be the carers of the children"
Principle 6 of the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, declares that, "The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents ..."
Parents, plural, please note.
It isn't normal for any child to have only one "carer". That is a fate that should only befall a child, whenever it isn't "possible" for him or her to have both the carers to whom he or she has the right, wherever possible, his mum and his dad.
Men remain able to impregnate even into the years of their lives when they have little life expectancy left. So one is more likely, even without a war like World War I, to find oneself a child whose dad has died. But women are more likely than men to physically abuse their own children so severely that a compassionate society might deem it not "possible" (i.e. tolerable) for them to enjoy their mums remaining their carers.
It is hard to say how many children who are not still entitled to both their parent-carers, because that ideal situation is no longer "possible", are left with mum as their sole carer, or dad. But, most children are entitled to two carers, one male, and the other female, their parents, because that remains "possible" in their cases.
Neither mum nor dad is the "primary" carer of a child for whom it remains possible to retain both carers, I hope, in your opinion, because that clichéd "primary carer" jargon, recipe for parentectomy, opens a whole new can of worms.
Even if one buys into the whole pseudo-science industry of "attachment theory", my argument that likelihood arguments such as yours, applied to who is or are a child's "carer" or carers (whether they be singular or plural) cannot justify sex discrimination.
Even if it isn't (as you argue) "likely" that children will often be made happier, because their individual impoverished dads, themselves by no means "financially independent", were allowed equally to take refuge in refuges provided to refugees of domestic violence and their children, is such a statistical argument as yours (as it would become, if you had cited any statistics), adequate to justify blatant sex discrimination, at the point of admission to a refuge? Must that dad's children be refused refuge from parental violence, merely because it was their male parent, rather than their female parent, who applied for refuge, by knocking on the door, when he and they could take no more of mum's routine child batterings and intimate partner batterings?
If a really poor dad knocks on the door of a refuge with five children, in fear of his life and those of his five children, is it lawful for the refuge to tell him to go home, and let mad mum murder him and his five children if she wants to, because he is a mere dad, and this refuge only caters for mums in danger of being murdered at home, along with their children?
Justify, if you can, the present day ideologically-motivated sex-discrimination, perpetrated by the publicly funded charities, against children with violemt mums, the minor sons and daughters of violent mothers whom peaceable dads have brought, in good faith, to the doorsteps of refuges, only to be refused refuge.
Roughly half of battered children are battered by their mothers, not their fathers. Roughly half of battered intimate partners are men, battered by women. That is how it is, nowadays. To publish this isn't misogyny. It is fact.