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???

They are given as much suppprt as necessary available to free herself of abuse.

@LangCleg I completely agree in regard to the cuts. I didn't know the 40% figure, Christ that is awful! I also think it is down to deeply entrenched sexism - but austerity works together with sexism, weakening the capacity for resistance to it.

The appropriate recourse in this situation is to apply for an occupation order through the courts. Many women would be unaware of this of course but it is the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence. If the mother approached a domestic violence advisory service that is what should be advised (unless a shelter is available and really needed).

This issue is connected IMO to the point pinkbobbles makes. I broadly agree with langcleg also, though not completely.

Family court, the police and social care all work to different standards, using different laws and they all have their own bureaucracy.

When it comes down to it each system will defensively rely on blaming a woman for their failures, since women are easy to blame. Women are caught in the gaps between these different standards and blamed for not living up to what often amounts to competing mutually exclusive expectations; social care expect you to keep children away from an abuser, the police won’t help because often in their assessment no crim has been committed then the court tells you you are alienating the children from their father.

Austerity has massively increased the risk of failure. Not just re DV but also re SEN. Care applications have now increased but you also have to remember that the thinking from authority is not that care is a bad thing but one of selective blindness to the standard of care children receive when in LA care.

I don’t think anyone has really considered the evidence re the reality of LA care vs the care of parents who have children removed.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets

I'm laughing with you.

I am sure they looked at my beautiful, intelligent child and thought they knew a hundred rich families who would love her. I was seriously planning a move to ireland to get social services out of my life. Eventually i just stopped answering the door to them.who knew thats all it would take?! People who have never had contact with social services really have no idea.

Terfulike - the availability of that route is highly dependent on a. Having funds to make the application and b. Being accepted for it based on quite high standards regarding what constitutes a threat which is again, different rules.

Social care are not even bothered about video evidence I have of my ex abusing my SEN DD. Their position is ‘well we can’t make him do anything if he doesn’t want to accept any help’

I do like your posts Offred

It’s rare for me to post on this section but I do read and you have an admirer.

(googles "occupation order")

That looks sensible.

@Terfulike have you seen it work in practise? Can it be put through quickly enough to ensure the safety of children without having to remove them?

When it comes down to it each system will defensively rely on blaming a woman for their failures, since women are easy to blame. Women are caught in the gaps between these different standards and blamed for not living up to what often amounts to competing mutually exclusive expectations; social care expect you to keep children away from an abuser, the police won’t help because often in their assessment no crim has been committed then the court tells you you are alienating the children from their father.

Yes. And, contrary to the woke crew's understanding, this is the actual definition of intersectionality.

See Crenshaw herself: www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf

Ha ha! Thanks pinkbobbles!

Obviously if the mother is acting beyond reason in terms of balancing the needs of her children for a calm homelife on the one hand and an understandable desire for a stable two parent family on the other then SS have to step in at some point.

Certain men though are incredibly manipulative and threatening. Obviously if there has been threat to life if the mother dares to leave (or obtain an occupation order) she may consider correctly that her children are more safe by staying (she is a hostage). In this case it relies on the skill of social workers and police to deduce what's going on and act accordingly to arrest the father.

If a mother is basically in thrall to the father SS need to take them into care though if things are that bad enough for the children.

They aren't "locked up" because many women don't press charges or give statements, through fear, so it goes on behind closed doors causing the children serious emotional harm. The women are adults , children's services are solely to protect the child and if the mum or dad won't safeguard them from witnessing dv they have a duty to intervene. Violence is not a reason to be sectioned or secure hospitals would be in very very high demand.

Obviously, we do need to have robust systems to protect children from experiencing childhoods which actually limit their lifelong health and well-being.

My position is basically questioning whether the system we currently have actually does that in practice...

I don’t believe it does.

I don’t believe it did that prior to austerity and I think it is even worse post austerity.

Does that mean I think that children should be left with abusive parents?

No.

But what I do think is that despite adverse events in childhood being the single most important factor re public health very little attention is given to public policy regarding this stuff.

The majority of public policy is extremely disjointed and focused on moralising rather than actual facts.

LA care in many ways is beyond criticism and said criticism is focused mainly towards mothers.

Mothers are not beyond criticism but we have a great evidence base re parenting now which is being lost in the efforts to moralise.

Chaotic As an ex-family Solicitor I could get a non-molestation order on the same day if time permitted. If I applied for an occupation order at the same time the judge would usually shorten the time for him to be served (the usual notice period being 14 days) and bring everything back a day or two later.

Assuming he could be found to have the papers served on him...

Re the thread title though social care are also hamstrung by the law.

They can threaten to remove the DC if the woman doesn’t get the man to leave but they do not have powers to remove the man. They frequently do not follow through on this threat. Many times they will make this threat and then subsequently allow the relationship to continue. One family I know this has happened recently and the woman has put pictures of her latest beating on SM. SC have allowed that to continue with their permission. The latest police report may result in removal of the DC but I know this will come as a shock to the woman involved given SC previous sanctioning of the relationship (he nearly strangled her to death a few years ago). So many mixed messages IMO.

If the police won’t remove the man, because it is not always that the woman has not tried to get them to, or the choice for the woman is forcing the man to leave or destitution then that is not a situation social care can solve.

I do however think people overestimate how often children are removed. With austerity social care are basically not functioning.

I don't disagree with you Offred but we have to deal with life as it is. If this was my sister I'd apply secretly from the father for an occupation order after secretly approaching GP and a domestic violence charity for letters confirming that my sister had symptoms consistent with domestic abuse. Locks can be changed and police alerted.

You can apply for an urgent case to the court by writing personally to the judge. Solicitors swallow money but all of these kinds of things can be done by yourself or a capable friend. The actual fees to the court are very minimal and I seem to remember an occupation order and non-Mol are free.

@Offred Yes sorry the thread title is not very well thought out. I should have said "the state" because it really is a matter of the combination of (and, as you have pointed out, contradictions between) various arms of the state. (I'm with bobbles, also liking your posts very much),

It is such a hidden issue, by the time it is noticed and acted upon it’s probably very psychologically ingrained as a family dynamic. And the woman may have lost hope or be frightened for her life. At that point it’s urgent the children’s needs for safety are recognized. However you are right, what happens to the man? Does the woman need to provide evidence if there was enough already for SS? Something needs to happen to the perpetrator, and is it ok for us as a society to be paternalistic enough and put a restraining order on the man not to contact the woman whether she wants this or not?

I’ve know health care workers say that the women that they could advise or support the most are often the ones who refuse contact, hide away. Maybe we should be doing far more in schools and with families to identify, talk about and expose this into the light more.

The standard for an occupation order is reasonably high and also reasonably complicated and if someone were to apply without legal advice then their application is more likely to fail. NCDV charge fees for this.

They are also pretty ineffective in practice TBH.

I also think it is a bit of a reach to expect victims of DV to have any friends, never mind a ‘capable friend’, faith in others and a good enough recognition of abusive behaviour they have experienced to be able to apply for an order.

Not to mention that doing all these things increases the likelihood they and their children will be killed because it antagonises abusers and the system doesn’t adequately respond.

That’s not to say I think doing any of the things is a waste of time. Not at all.

I just think some people’s views about what victims of DA ‘should do’ or ‘can do’ are often unrealistic and unhelpful.

Sorry I cross posted with the solicitor Moose. But there you are if you can afford it a solicitor if not fill the forms yourself for an occupation order and non mol if required. Anything requiring more is frankly dangerous and criminal and needs immediate police presence. There are some evil manipulative men who are beyond even these measures sadly. My advice is limited to the less severe end of the spectrum.

Myself I was working and secretly successfully planned an escape to a rented house with the children. I wish I had got him out of the family home though with an occupation order as it took 3 years to get a financial order and get him to sell the house. So I would definitely recommend an occupation Order. I did all the other court forms myself there's a very good book called the family courts without a solicitor or something.

The reality is actually is destitution more of a risk than appeasing an abuser?

Is LA care better than a man who is EA FA and SA?

These are the real life judgements women are making, and the system doesn’t adequately regard those choices for what they are. It is very black and white, because as Lang says when the laws were made certain assumptions re social security were implicit.

At the moment the system is failing so comprehensively that women and children are suffering compound harm. Children are not being removed when they should, families are not getting support they need, everything has become fire fighting...

Can my friend who left school at 14 because she was sexually abused due to neglectful and abusive parenting and who is dyslexic and who brings me her benefit forms to fill in and responses to read fill in court applications herself?