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???

I don’t hate you terf, nor was I telling you to go away. I would like to draw a line under the disagreement re that particular point and for you to continue in the discussion, if you want to.

Coming in and telling a woman to leave obviously creates an atmosphere where women are more likely to have an adversarial relationship with SW.

You can't work with mums if your MO is to come in and frighten them. You also can't work with them if you are unaware of and unable to reflect on the sometimes unwarranted fears they have of your involvement.

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.

Yes, thanks Off that’s exactly what I meant.

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.

Please can I sign up for the Offred fan club too? It feels like every time I read a post and think 'I absolutely agree and this poster explained it far more accurately and concisely than I could' I then notice it is Offred who posted it. Thank you!

Goodness! I’m not sure how I feel about a fan club!

But I am grateful for the feedback re what I write being clear. I get stressed and upset about the cognitive losses I have as a result of MS, my typing has gotten worse, I mix up words more often, I forget words and how to spell....

It’s really nice feedback for those reasons, so thank you for that!

Iceweasel, yes, a woman can get a court order to remove a man from her home. But that's only if she wants to/can do/ has the ability to leave the house/instruct a solicitor etc etc.
In my experience, removal of the children really is the very last resort of the local authority in the majority of cases and the mother will have been warned/ given advice by a social worker.

No one has commented on my tagging with a court order suggestion. Was it a bad one?

Oh no malarkey I meant to but got sidetracked! It is a good one IMO and you may be pleased to hear it was in the recent govt consultation.

FFS Offred

ok... so am I now needing to clarify that the specific part where I ‘got sidetracked’ was wheni replied to brandnewhouse’s point about whole family care, which was when I remembered about malarkey’s point in my head and intended to mention it. I didn’t because it flew out of my head again while writing that post... That often happens to me now and it stresses me out so when malarkey wrote the recent post I felt bad....

Honestly terf, it is very hard work this... I’m not sure how I am persecuting you seemingly in everything I say.

I dont know what your post at 2035 means. I said ffs because I suggested a court order and get criticised, someone else suggests a court order and its a good idea. Confused.

Oh, well I misconstrued that. Apologies.

Malarkey suggested tagging as a way of monitoring compliance with staying away. If you read my posts I have never said court orders were the problem. I simply disagreed with your assertion that occupation orders are ‘the solution’ re the problems discussed on this thread.

Malarkey made a different point completely.

What do you think an occupation order is if it isnt a court order

Again, and this is the last time I will say it. I did not make any point against the use of court orders. The point of disagreement was positioning the civil orders we currently have re DA as ‘the solution’ for various reasons that are all available up thread but broadly; they are widely written about as being ineffective, my personal experiences confirm this, they are ineffective in part because they are not easy to get or enforce.

Malarkey made a point about monitoring perpetrators using electronic tagging. The govt consultation contained some questions about this. This is a different point to the one you made.

I didn't say a court order was "The solution"" I said it was ".. the best course of action in the absence of an arrestable offence" a conditional statement.

Your view on court orders foloowing my suggestion:
"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..."

Your view on court orders to Malarkeys suggestion:
"It is a good one IMO and you may be pleased to hear it was in the recent govt consultation."

SuperLoudPoppingAction thank you. I had not heard of the Safe and Together model. I will look at it.

I am sorry you have been through/are going through a similar set of circumstances. I just have to stick my head in the sand about legal fees. I have an excellent solicitor and she has achieved an awful lot in a difficult situation, but it is savings and earnings for my children’s future gone. We live day to day now. I would not go back to where we were, I am trying to recover and DC is thriving but the emotional and physical costs have been enormous, for something I did not cause and when I did all I could to protect DC. I am still not fully out as ex is still pushing and we are nowhere near a final order, so it seems never ending.

I hope you are doing okay.

The Safe and Together stuff looks worth exploring, though, so thank you

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. - langcleg.

This. Austerity is directly driving an appalling rise in neglect, in abuse because services are being cut, and in poverty. Women and children suffer disproportionately, and the echoes of this will continue in ruined lives for a very long time.
Investment in these services isn’t woke or cool or attention grabbing, but it is vital for a healthy society.

I completely agree Bowl, Uni Credit in particular is making this impossible

And its not just affecting abused women. Soon 2 kids will get UC or CTCs and the others won't. ie government sanctioned child abuse

@chaoticgood

“People who are a danger to themselves and others are supposed to be sectioned under the mental health act, I thought.”

Only if due to mental illness. Not if someone is just an arsehole.

@iceweasel
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.

Agreed but I covered that in my earlier post at about 9.30am. I'm sure there's incidents of bad practice but in my experience of working these cases we've always tried everything possible to do this. Including providing for all the practicalities that can be a barrier.

I know children should not be moved unless it's a last resort but I'm really not sure that they are in domestic abuse cases. Do you believe they are?

know children should not be moved unless it's a last resort but I'm really not sure that they are in domestic abuse cases. Do you believe they are?

I’ll poke my nose back in and answer.

What I believe is that giving a woman “chances” to keep her children when she doesn’t have the necessary resources to escape or draw watertight boundaries is cruel. Especially when SS don’t have the resources to provide support either.

Which isn’t to say I believe that that is always the issue, but I believe it is in a proportion of cases. Just consider that “40%” statistic upthread.

And I should say that, (although we have family experience of special guardianship, step-parenting and other non-biological parenting) DH and I ruled out having a joint child via adoption because our collective insights gave us deep unease around these types of issue in the CP system.

I expect I’ll get attacked by adopters now, but it’s our honest observation and analysis that there are major flaws.

“Risk of future emotional abuse” deserves a mention again here. I know it was mentioned upthread.

UC is rendering the Children Act useless.