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???

agreed

Yes.

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.

I tried to find the 40% stat bit couldnt...could you repeat? Apologies!

So what more could social care do? Like I said, I've never seen a case where everything hasn't been provided such as new accommodation. In my experience it's simply not the case that women are told to leave and then expected to get on with it. That would be ridiculous. But yes...what specifically could they do?

The cuts in domestic abuse charities are crippling and probably result in more people getting to the point of social care involvement and that is a real problem.

When i was looking upthread I did find the bit about social care assessing whether a single parent works or not. Shocking, yes, but again not standard practitehe. I've never heard of it before or done it.

I know there's undoubtedly cases of really bad practice but I find the idea/presumption that we're just waiting to remove children from vulnerable women and giving them "chances" like some sadistic power play so frustrating. I've done so much through my work to encourage women in such positions to re-discover their confidence and to appreciate their skills and qualities as parents, and I've worked fucking hard to provide support so that children don't need to live in care (in almost every case other professionals in school or health etc are saying children should be removed) and in the vast majority cases its been successful.

So what specifically should be done differently, at social care end?

Are they safe from violence, threats of violence and abuse? I've read that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves. In family court, will her efforts to keep her children safe be recognised as being those of a good parent, or alienating the children from their father? Will the children now be visiting the violent man unsupervised?

Not sure if much else can be done by social services or not, but they need to be able to work with the courts in protecting children, everyone needs to get on the same page.

It is a fair point as well that removing the abuser isn't necessarily removing the problem if the woman is going to be vulnerable to the next abusive man that comes along. We know abusers look for vulnerable targets, and also, let's be honest, if a woman comes with a home and some income beyond JSA she might be an attractive prospect. I think all women in that position need to be offered the most intensive of support necessary, be that social work, psychological or whatever, but the state can't realistically prevent competent adults from having relationships. It's the sort of thing that would need societal and attitude change, I think.

There’s an assumption being made on this thread that women want to leave.

I’ve seen so many women think it’s more important for the children to have both their parents together than than to have them not witness abuse.

The lengths some women will go to to enable their children’s fathers to have a relationship with them is shocking.

I’ve heard so many say ‘but he’s a good dad’ even when they themselves have bruises on their face.

This is why we need public education.

Working with individuals won’t solce the problem.

Sevendown That men can be abusive partners but wonderful fathers seems to be the view pushed by the family court system. Women who seek to protect their children are often punished for it. What we need is change in the courts and supporting organisations.

Ive not bn a victim of phychal violence myself but why would u want ur children watching daddy beating mum up?? But have had to call police if they wont leave mine & go home....and bn stalked by ex's. And yes deff not something my children should ever see. But police cant convict & yet social worker can act & remove a child with the "this might happen or probablys"
They NEVER remove the very children that are & still are abused!!!
Because there training is same as back in the 60's when everyone had to put up & brush it all under carpet.....all these "safegurding" measures not helping to spot the real victims of abuse & help them. Focusing & breaking up familys wear theres a "risk of" yet what are they going to do better for that child???? Nothing

May have missed something, but why is one problem for women the lack of say housing etc. Why is it that the children have to leave, the women can leave too and that way looks after her kids better, but the man gets to Stay? Is this just because if they move a man out he still knows where they are? Is it because the woman are even more likely to let the man back in that situation?

@Midgebabe
Usually it's the perpetrator that leaves, not the other way round. That does leave the victim at risk of continued harassment etc due to knowing where she lives.

In high risk cases where people have to leave in secret then clearly its not often very possible to stay in the same home.

In cases where social care are involved I've not known finding housing to be much of s problem, but clearly in many cases social care aren't involved and social housing is in very short supply.