Why do social services take away the children instead of the violent man?

[chaoticgood]

Call me naive but I had never really considered before how a common reason for removing children from their homes & separating them from their mothers is that the mother "refuses to leave" their violent partner and the children are considered to be in danger from the man. I saw a documentary about this recently and then looked into it more and I am absolutely shocked that men who are considered a danger to children are so often allowed to remain in normal society while the child and the mother are forcibly separated, causing immense trauma to both, and the child is put into care with all the known disadvantages that brings.

I don't know why everyone is not shouting from the rooftops about the absolute inhumanity and insanity of this. If a man is a danger to children why is he not locked up? People who are a danger to themselves and others are supposed to be sectioned under the mental health act, I thought. If they are a man and the "others" to whom they are a danger are their partner's children then what, that's ok because boys will be boys, and we should remove the child from the danger instead because the danger itself is just how the world is and can't be helped, we can only try to get out of its way?

It seems to me that the assumptions behind this practise and behind the acceptance of it are:

1. Male violence is a fact of life, like the weather. It's a mother's job to protect her child from these things, and if she does not manage it she does not deserve to keep the child.
2. Men are entitled to abuse their partner and their partner's children. A man who goes next door and assaults his neighbours will be in prison or sectioned but in His Own House Under His Roof the rules are different.
3. Women "choose" to remain with violent men for the sheer fun of it and those who do so are selfish women who are choosing for themselves at the expense of their children. (All this choosing going on, huh, it's not as if violent men ever target vulnerable, previously abused women and mess with their heads until they lose sight of their free will or anything.)

I just don't get how social services can have enough evidence of a child being in danger to actually remove them, but somehow that evidence is not enough to remove the man who is actually doing the bad things???

No one is assuming that the woman chooses to stay for the fun of it, but if she cannot safeguard her children then she is not a fit parent.

It really is as simple as that.

Neither of them are fit parents. Him for obvious reasons, her for not protecting the children.
Social services aren't the police, only the police could remove him anyway.

Please don't get me wrong, I've just realised that could seem like a dig at people on here who work for social services but I don't mean it that way. I mean that our society as a whole seems to have those assumptions baked into it, and the whole system including police, courts and so on are operating according to them. Of course social services do what they can to keep kids safe in the face of that.

Social services aren't the police, only the police could remove him anyway. Sure but evidence is evidence. If there is evidence of the man being a danger, why don't the police remove him?

Because the Children Act makes witnessing domestic violence "significant harm" and this is sufficient to remove a child from the home.

The Children Act was written with the assumption that abused women would have the means to leave - ie a working social security system; secure tenancies; sufficient domestic violence services; jobs offering a living wage; accessible childcare. Austerity took all that away. Hence the massive rise in care applications.

The family courts do recognise this and often order mothers to participate in things like the Freedom Programme, to help them recognise less obvious forms of abuse such as coercive control. But they can't magic up services where none exist and the law mandates them to be child-centred, not woman-centred.

It's a dreadful state of affairs.

It's very complicated, isn't it? I understand how women can be ground down by men, but if they cannot protect their child by leaving a man like this, then the child has to be put somewhere safe.

I think the problem is the reluctance of the police to arrest men like this and the legal system which means sentences for violent crimes are too short.

See, for example, this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3244817-Universal-credit-domestic-abuse.

There are lots of people who advocate for only removing children if the parent has been convicted of something - which is the standard of proof you are basically asking for in your OP.

That would condemn many thousands of children to lives of severe emotional physical and sexual abuse and neglect. The system we have is very far from perfect - and I'd argue that we have set the standard way too low - but it does take into account that there will be situations where there is little prospect of securing a conviction but where children are in danger.

For once I am in full agreement with LangCleg

I get your point OP

Or this blog post: www.katebelgrave.com/2017/12/in-a-refuge-domestic-violence-no-universal-credit-money-since-october-this-government-is-vicious/

What does enrage me on a similar theme is that a man who is violent towards the mother of the children is not deemed a danger to the children.

As such, there are women who feel unable to leave due to the worry of potentially leaving their children unsupervised with their former partner.

We had a child who disclosed abuse, but it was not clear if it was one or all of the three men in the household , father,uncle or grandfather who was responsible. The mother refused to accept that any of them were abusers, said they could all still live in the family home and was furious when all the children were removed.

Poor women are in a catch-22. They don't have the financial means or support to leave. They can't call the police in case social services are called in and care applications made. So, what they do is take the bashing, try to hide it from the children, and convince themselves that the children don't know.

And another thought...

Say the police did remove him, and he was sent to prison. There is nothing stopping the mother getting into another bad relationship with another man who seeks out that vulnerability and plays on it.

To me the issue goes way deeper into how we raise our children. How boys are socialised into men that abuse, and how girls are socialised to accept abuse/have not enough self worth to be able to see past relying on a man. Tackling the issues needs to begin in childhood, not left until it is too late and the police/courts/social services are mopping up the mess, and another generation growing up traumatised, witnessing and normalising abuse.

Women who want to leave should be given every resource available to do so, and the cuts are having a terrible impact on this. But if a woman refuses to leave her abusive partner then having him forcibly removed won't protect the children because the mother has shown she isn't capable of safeguarding them.

The man can only be removed (against the wishes of the woman) though if he has committed a crime and that will require evidence. If the main (and often only) adult witness won’t give any evidence and continues to live with him there’s often not much the police can do. I’m afraid in that case I think the children should be removed (and children are generally left too long in those situations). Their needs are not being taken care of and they are being put in danger. It’s not about blame really- just best possible outcome for kids.

Because there is usually little to arrest over, Instead, the potential for risk and unhealthy environment means SS are concerned. They do work with the woman to help her leave, but often (in my experience) this does not work and he stays in her life. SS say leave him and keep the children. Some mums do not make decisions that put the children first. Very sad for all.

Care applications are up 40% since austerity began. There aren't suddenly 40% more women saying Sure, mate, smack me about a bit and let the kids watch just for kicks.

*There are lots of people who advocate for only removing children if the parent has been convicted of something - which is the standard of proof you are basically asking for in your OP.

That would condemn many thousands of children to lives of severe emotional physical and sexual abuse and neglect.*

I understand, and of course given that things are how they are, removing the child is better than leaving them with a violent man. I'm not asking for more proof. I don't believe for a second that social services remove children lightly. I think they weigh up all the evidence. But surely the best thing to do in the light of such evidence is to remove the man, not the child. (Or lock up the man AND remove the child) Yet the state (by which i mean courts and police not just social services) needs so much more evidence to remove the man than they do to remove the child. It is inconsistent and grossly in favour of men.

Some of the issue will be the burden of proof. To remove a man, the police will need evidence and to remove on a long term basis (i.e. prison) they will need to bring charges and be able to successfully prosecute. I suspect that social services won’t need quite the same evidence to remove children, at least to begin with.

I think it's more because the mother is vulnerable and therefore currently unable to provide full care to her children. Also, it may indicate a possibility of her getting into similarcrelationship patterns again so the children need to be protected.

I do have so much sympathy for women who are victims of DV. But the children's needs must come first and being far away from negative influences is paramount.

Surely your gut instinct is to protect your children come hell or high water?
They don't rock up and say 'pick' there are months of reports and assessments, agencies involved etc -
They are given as much suppprt as necessary available to free herself of abuse.

I'd walk and not look back if that was the choice.

Yeah I know it's shit. But we can't have low standards of proof for locking up adults. And I don't believe we should have higher standards of prof for removing children.

So it might be the best of a shitty situation in which 30% of the population is routinely violent and abusive to the other 70%

I guess because unless they lock up the violent man, they cannot stop the man from getting back in the family home if the mother lets them.

Also, it is both parents job to keep children safe, from any danger and neglect. If they cannot do this, for whatever reason, they are putting their kids in harms way.

I think SS do try as much as possible to advise and help a person with a violent partner to leave, and also to have the kids back if they have proved that they are not going to put their children in harms way again.