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???

As well as the fact that the state effectively washes its hands of them when they are 16/18. Growing up in care often does condemn children to a life on the margins. Adoption offers better prospects but is effectively a way of shifting the problem to the adoptive parents who will either sink or swim. The glaring problem is that we live in a society that does not look after its members. That needs to change on a fundamental level.

I’ve had some experience in this field and I can say that’s it’s so much more complicated than I ever imagined!

For a start what’s needed is a public health campaign to teach ordinary members of the public that non physical abuse is domestic abuse and is harmful to children. This is ime the biggest barrier to protecting children.

Many years ago I saw a man beating up his wife in the street. I reported it to the police (with the woman's encouragement), but the police spent half an hour trying to dissuade me from giving a statement because the couple were 'known to them'.

Apparently CCTV backed me up because the case went to court. It did not, however, result in a conviction. The police officer who was there as a witness said to me afterwards, "well that was a waste of time."

I sometimes wonder if the outcome would have been different if the woman had been middle class, educated, and mentally healthy. I also sometimes wonder if she's still alive.

It seems unreasonably difficult to convict men of domestic violence even when there's good evidence. I can understand why women have little faith in the system.

In fiscal terms, it would also be much cheaper. Looked after children have terrible outcomes and also cost a lot more money than prevention services, so it should always be a last resort.

Funnelling more money in to benefits would also work. Surprisingly parents who are depressed, stressed and starving don't always make the best parenting choices. Who knew?

A fiscal conservative can maintain the illusion of being a fiscal conservative if they're pro-slashing welfare, but pro-increasing the police/prison budget. It's bizarre to me that rather than give a family a few hundred extra quid a month, they'd rather see the state spend many times more in sorting out the consequences of a generation raised in poverty.

I don't know why someone posted that bullshit about violent men not being considered a danger to children - violent men are responsible for the vast majority of children on child protection plans.

Yeah the point was about multi agency working TBH. All well and good for SC to make it clear DA is child abuse and the father should be kept away but not much use to a woman who then finds herself in family court being criticised for ‘parental alienation’ because ‘families need fathers and how he treated you is nothing to do with how he treats the DC’

Funnelling more money in to benefits would also work. Surprisingly parents who are depressed, stressed and starving don't always make the best parenting choices. Who knew?

Yep. Reforming short term tenancies or providing more social housing would also help. Because it's one thing to leave knowing that you'll be broke, it's quite another to leave when you might have to change rented accommodation half a dozen times over the course of your children's school career, meaning their education is continually disrupted.

No one should be locked up without being convicted of a crime.
Social services should be able to support the woman in getting a court order to remove the violent man from the home, provide evidence (the evidence they are using to have the children removed)

I'm still struggling to see what sort of thing could be evidence warranting removal of a child but not evidence of a crime.

Is it that there are things men do to women and children that are not in fact illegal, but are so harmful as to warrant removing a child? If so what are they, and why are they not illegal?

Or is it that, often, the man's behaviour is illegal, and it is known that he is doing it, but no-one is pressing charges? I am showing my ignorance of the law here but can't someone be convicted if there is evidence of a crime, regardless of whether someone presses charges? Why does the abused woman have to risk her life to speak out against the man, if the evidence is there anyway?

Or perhaps it is that a piece of evidence which "counts" for social services does not "count" in the criminal justice system. Why would this be, other than under the assumption that taking a kid away is somehow less serious, less damaging, than convicting a man of violence. I suspect men who have been convicted of violence at some point in their lives are actually affected much less by that, than a child who was taken into care or a mother whose child was removed from her.

Yeah the point was about multi agency working TBH.

Yes. Because, all too often, the choice is not between doing the right thing by your kids or doing the wrong thing by your kids. It's between which state agency to piss off and which to keep onside.

Langcleg has it in a nutshell - it is society failure not the Mothers necessarily. Often the Mother would be trying to leave a) nowhere to go b) no money for food/bills/rental in some ways that is also endangering the child. Simple removal of the male would suffice.

Chaotic it’s because the law is still heavily focused on physical violence and because of the standard of proof meaning he said/she said is difficult to get to court.

I think the issue with the evidence is that one requires evidence and the other evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

It is often easy to see the impact on a child in behaviour, school results, illness but there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man in the house is causing this.

OP it's because the standard of proof for criminal convictions and in the family courts is different.

In order to be found guilty of a criminal matter, you're supposed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But this is unusually high within the legal system: most standards of proof are balance of probabilities, or sometimes even lower. The family court works on the balance of probabilities.

So for example you can have a child with injuries that are obviously non-accidental, and there are 2 carers, sometimes more. Both blame the other and there's no evidence that who was responsible, only that one of them was. You're not likely to see a criminal conviction there, because there's not enough proof, but equally the child is probably going to need to be removed because it's obvious that one of them did it and the other one failed to protect.

I do agree with the criminal standard of proof and civil standard of proof being different. I wouldn't want to see balance of probabilities introduced when someone was losing their liberty possibly for decades or more, and nor would I advocate raising the standard of proof in the civil courts either- and even if I did, neither is going to happen. But this discrepancy does lead to some problems, certainly.

I'm still struggling to see what sort of thing could be evidence warranting removal of a child but not evidence of a crime.
I'm not familiar with the DV laws in this country, but is it not easier to get a court order to protect against threats and harm, and to remove a violent man from the family home than it is to get a criminal conviction? Is the burden of proof not less?

I'm saying that if there is enough evidence to remove a child there should be enough to remove a violent man, but not necessarily enough for a conviction.

I don't know why someone posted that bullshit about violent men not being considered a danger to children - violent men are responsible for the vast majority of children on child protection plans.

In private law cases, judges operate a presumption in favour of contact. This presumes that contact with both parents is beneficial and positive for the child. Past domestic abuse does not necessarily rebut the presumption- judges very often take the view that abuse of the mother does not necessarily impact on parenting ability.

As a social worker, you will see the very extreme cases that reach the radar of social services. So many family situations where there is lower level abuse or where the family is middle class so the abuse is covered up will be dealt with through the private law system. Here, there doesn't seem to be the same appreciation of the damage caused by domestic abuse.

It's also often magistrates, ie amateurs, who are making the decisions rather than the judges. There's a discussion to be had about whether that's a good or a bad thing but the levels of training are quite different.

Because of what the law says.
Local authorities have a duty of care towards children in their area. The Children Act 1989 sets out the test for removal.
A local authority have no right to remove a man, only the police do and that's only if they can arrest him etc.
What I would say is that in most cases, the local authority will have given the family a chance and they will have told the mother that they will remove the children if she doesn't get rid of the man. Sadly, in some cases this doesn't happen and the local authority have to intervene.
Think about it logically. How could the local authority remove a man anyway? Remove him to where? He can't be imprisoned unless found guilty/pled guilty at trial.

Thanks everyone for all these informative and thought provoking answers to my questions!

It's also often magistrates, ie amateurs, who are making the decisions rather than the judges. There's a discussion to be had about whether that's a good or a bad thing

It's a bad thing imo. I had a lay bench that was nearly moved to tears by a handmade Christmas card from a very violent father to his son. He had been stalking the mother for months, trying to find her new address. The card apparently was powerful enough for the lay bench to think that unsupervised contact straight away without a Cafcass report was a great idea because 'clearly he loves his son so much'. It took quite robust advocacy to tell them they were talking out of their arses and breaching the practice direction. Meanwhile, the mum was shaking with fear. These days so many people are unrepresented and don't even have a lawyer to wade in and tell the bench that they are being idiots and putting lives at risk.

Think about it logically. How could the local authority remove a man anyway? Remove him to where? He can't be imprisoned unless found guilty/pled guilty at trial.
Can't the woman get a court order for his removal without a conviction? Remove him from the family home and local area. He finds himself alternative accommodation?

I am speaking from a position largely of ignorance on this. But I have seen my own dd in the thrall of an abusive man. She has no children- but with huge pain and reluctance I have to say that I not sure she would have put their needs first if she had....

That’s my point really. If things are going to be offered as ‘the solution’ then they a. Need to be effective and b. Need to be available to all.

I think that statement is wrong Offred: different points in the spectrum often require different solutions from acne to prison sentences.

I think pooh pooh ing one solution to one degree of domestic violence is mean. You are basically saying those women who arent under danger of their life dont matter

How am I saying anything of the kind?!

I was not the one claiming a catch all solution, my very point which you quoted was saying if you are going to claim ‘the solution is’ then it needs to actually be a solution.

I was disputing your rather arrogant pronouncement that;

‘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.’

Which seems to be based on you personally feeling that if you had applied to court for such orders they would have been helpful.

Spontaneous

The whole point with these men is they isolate then they begin the process of getting the woman so compliant she believes it is her fault and she is why he hits her. If she didn't do this, do that, say this, do that on time and so on. These women are often so beaten down they have no idea which way is up. They do truly believe they are to blame.

By cutting them off from family and friends or any other form of support, the man exercises maximum control with no come back. She is totally at his mercy.

Many of these women have no phones, no access to the outside world to get help. Financial abuse is a given in these circumstances and even being able to put away a couple of pound is an almost impossible feat. He will control absolutely everything down to the last penny - he doesn't want her to escape, this is his ideal, why change what has taken years to build. He will protect what he has created.

These men are unhinged monsters

This is very close to what happened in my case except I had a phone and he hit me only twice. He used different methods, the favourite being to make me hate myself and therefore dangerously suicidal.

Just because a man doesn't hit you doesn't mean its not life threatening. And many of these women can be helped by following the advice I gave because the physical element is not in the perpetrators armoury. Please do not minimise non-violent coercive control.

The last sentance sorry was addressed generally to everyone on the thread, just catching up

Can't the woman get a court order for his removal without a conviction? Remove him from the family home and local area. He finds himself alternative accommodation?

Potentially, but only if she wants to. Still leaves the Local Authority in a difficult position regarding the kids if she doesn't