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???

How is spontaneously minimising coercive control in a post detailing coercive control?!

the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence.’ did you read this bit? because that bit clearly means for a certain group of abused women not all.

If she doesnt want to then we discussed earlier in the threadpossible reasons and options

Because both parents are clueless about protecting children

A man being violent aggressive or abusive is one reason, and failure of the other parent to understand and keep their children safe is reason 2.

A mother who was making all steps to remove her cildren and protect them from abuse would not have a child removed usually, but a woman that minimised the abuse and continued to put her children in the care or presense of an abuser is not a fit parent euther.

A lot of women continue relationships with abusive men even though it puts their children at risk. Its not ok

Christ, nowordsnow - that's all eerily like my own situation.
I try and be all pollyanna about spending so much on a solicitor.
I would rather spend it on other things though tbh

Have you all seen the Safe and Together model?
It's resource heavy but as a mindset shift I think it's helpful.

The Three Planets discussed as part of the training rings very true.

Lots of women who are abused within a relationship come to see their abuser as their security. The idea of that security being threatened is incredibly scary. Denial of what's happening can be at a visceral level.
All the while they are likely doing a lot to keep their children safe like sending them out to play while they provoke an argument so a very volatile guy can get his mood out of his system and quieten down in time for children to be put to bed.

Not actually optimal parenting but brave and insightful behaviors adapted to a very adverse set of circumstances.

Potentially, but only if she wants to. Still leaves the Local Authority in a difficult position regarding the kids if she doesn't
That's why there should be more support for women to do so, social services should be able to offer evidence and assistance. Also more support for women to take the children and leave the family home if that is what she would prefer, easier access to social housing and financial help. Children should only be taken as a last resort.

Yes I did read that bit. I am also referring to that group of women.

You made the claim that the orders are ‘the appropriate recourse’ for that group of women.

Many people have tried to explain to you why you may feel that may have helped you (though you don’t know because you didn’t apply for the orders), there is a wealth of literature available re the problems with these orders, the govt consultation into reforms acknowledges they are problematic and ineffective as solutions...

*but why it’s not necessarily any use to other women

I just said different solutions are best for different groups why do you insist that no solution is any kind of solution unless it works for everyone

The comment I clarified was to the whole thread

I’m pretty sure removing children is very much a last resort. My own Dsis has had SS involvement for years due to DA and still non of her children have been removed (though they absolutely should be).

There needs to be a lot more money pumped into the system, better mental health provision etc the problem needs tackling from all sides.

I didn’t.

I said; 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.

Which was in response to your claim that ‘the appropriate recourse’ is an occupation order and your subsequent sneering disbelief that women such as my friend even exist or that an occupation order might not be the solution, which was deeply unpleasant.

@Terfulike just stop for a moment to consider the social capital, confidence, MC privilege, education and general dynamism you’re describing or quite unconsciously assuming there

I am appalled by this comment
What right have you to assume I am MC? Im from a WC background in northern industrial town. That I had social capital when my husband had distanced my friends and family from me? Confidence!? I have none. Education, yes.General dynamism? JC the stress of the three years after I left him, the undiagnosed hypothyroidism which nearly killed me, the loss of my job because of that, the poverty as a a single mother one of the first on UC, the having to move to a tiny 2bed house with 4 kids on my own when I was ill, nearly losing my son as I had nowhere for him to sleep, the food bank visits... how dare you make assumptions about me.

Terf - that post wasn’t an assumption about you... That was a comment regarding those things being important in ability to achieve civil orders re DA and saying that when you say ‘the appropriate recourse is’ about something that the ability to achieve is determined by the things listed you are doing so because you’ve failed to recognise that power dynamic.

‘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.’

So this is the comment in question. I did not go on to be sneering that's just a fact that only I can know I suppose.

*You said; 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.

What I said was the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence by the man is an occupation order. I stand by that for that group. For non violent abusers that is the best way to get them out (and change locks)

I dont see why this effective solution cant be recommended to such women just because it isnt an available solution for everyone (as I readily acknowledged at the start)

because you’ve failed to recognise that power dynamic

Patronising!

Of course I know nothing about power dynamics do I? Living with an coercivelly controlling abusive man for 20 years.

I mentioned in my following threads that people might need help with these things it doesnt mean its not the appropriate course of action though does it? People who are very isolated and not very literate wouldnt be able to carry it out on their own but it's still the appropriate course of action. The domestic violence charity in my town specifically helps abused women to fill in these forms. Is that still a problem for you?

Brandnewhouse - there have been a few projects re ‘whole family care’ I think.

There are lots of issues. I think SC is a polarising topic and what people think about cases seems to be very influenced by whether they trust ‘the system’ or not.

There are some real issues with the system IMO; too much political moralising has found it’s way into the bureaucracy, this mixes with unconscious biases leading to different standards being applied based on perceptions of economic class where there are safeguarding concerns, SC was already under resourced prior to austerity and has been almost completely destroyed now.

There are however things SC are leading the way on; I can see changes are happening re institutional attitudes - notably re DA.

It’s not SC’s fault that they correctly identify abuse more often than other agencies but it does put women in a very difficult position of trying to please a number of competing viewpoints.

I didn’t say that, it wasn’t even my comment terf. I was simply trying to explain the poster was not assuming anything about you but trying to point out a gap in your analysis re the power dynamic in the comment you made and the subsequent sneering.

And please quote my sentences which demonstrate my

sneering disbelief that women such as my friend even exist

Im well aware from the women I met on the Freedom Programme thanks that these women exist

Based on my experience? if they remove the violent man, there is a good chance that the woman in question will get angry, put her efforts into fighting the man's removal, and (if she does not succeed in getting back together with him), often ends up in another relationship with an equally violent man shortly afterward.

In these cases, the vile shitty guy is the biggest problem and it is he who bears most of the blame, but the woman is also an unfit parent.

Well if she's already left him that's different is this an imaginary friend as her circumstances keep changing! <

If you didn’t mean this in the way I interpreted (as a sneer) then I apologise.

Can we draw a line under this now? I don’t feel it is very productive.

I did not sneer, why are you intent on making me out to be a callous bitch Offred? I dont understand why you seem to hate me as a poster so much. Ok Ill go away, Im obviously not the type of domestic violence victim whose welcome here.Thanks

I don’t think anyone is saying there are no women like that kokeshi.

I agree with others that the idea that SC will ‘take the children’ is exaggerated by fear and gossip but also by some aspects of SC practice.

There are failures which work both ways, children removed because of poor practice and children not removed because of poor practice.

Poor practice has increased because of austerity.

SW case loads have been problematic for many years and this has exacerbated compassion fatigue (as well as regular fatigue), staff turnover, inconsistency, delay, poor scrutiny, defensive practice etc etc which all lead to failures.

SW have been a whipping boy for funding failures for many years too.

I think too that authoritarianism doesn’t really help. Coming in and telling a woman to leave obviously creates an atmosphere where women are more likely to have an adversarial relationship with SW. This is more likely anyway because of the fears the already exist and the cognitive dissonance which is a survival strategy.

Taking families into care would be a vast improvement.