Could someone please explain to me the rational behind this senario;

A family live together, father, mother, two children, the husabnd is abusive, he hits the mother in front of the children,he hits the children, social services get involved and tell the mother "father leaves the home and has no contact or we will take your children into care"

Now same senario only before social services get involved mother leaves father because of D.V and father applies to the courts for contact,  abuse is proven, s7 report says " contact recommended".

 Why?

Can I ask, it is that nobody can answer this question, or that your just choosing not to answer?

 

 

The answer to that is the laws an ***. Oops i meant to say its due to the fact that the law still sees the mother as the nurturing one in the relationship and therefore attemppts to promote the relationship. Go figure???????????? 

Hi

 When you say contact is this supervised contact or not out of curiousity.

 When there is domestic violence in relationships, which is impacting upon children, social workers (in my area) often encourage the violent partner to leave and tell the mother (which it normally is) that there should be no contact between the children and their father. By this it is often meant that they should not facilitate contact but we will offer supervised contact between the father and his children.  Mothers in this position are encouraged to seek legal advice.

 The problem in the courts is that it is very rare for fathers to be denied contact. Research has shown that even when there is extreme violence, this is sometimes encouraged. However, if contact is encouraged, it should be in a safe manner for the children i.e. either in a supervised or supported contact centre.  Ideally if a report has been written recommending this, contact should be observed and an addendum report written to recommend, or otherwise, continued contact.

 I am writing this very quickly, so I hope that this all makes sense!

Hi, thanks for the replies.

Yes, contact usually starts off a supervised, but i'm sure as you are aware, that usually ends pretty quickly in favour of unsupervised, followed by overnight access.

 It is this rational that the mothers who have escaped violence and the children who have been abused or witnessed ( emotional abuse) the abuse can not understand.

They go into court believing that people who abuse their child will not get access and can not believe that the system is favouring these people.

When the mothers refuse they are made to look like the bad guy, ordered to have psych evaluations, the children are pressed into agreeing to contact, or if too young to understand forced into a room with the person who abused them and then the reports to the court from cafcass and the guardians are saying things like "the child was perfectly happy and settled" when it's been screaming throughout the whole process.

Physical and mental symptoms of such instances are waved aside as the children fight to cope with this further 'abuse' by the court system and no one who deals with the aftermath can understand why.

So my question to anyone brave enough to answer from the social service/ cafcass/ guardian side of things is why does the system consider ( when you have proved abuse and a child obviously suffering from past abuse and court ordered 'abuse' ) this to be in a child's best interests?

I would like to add, I'm not attacking anyone here, i'm trying to gain some insight.

 

 

 

Hi could I recommend that you checjk out the NSPCC website as I recently veiwed research which was jointly funded which looked at the issue of contact. As you say in some cases contact is not appropriate which is what this study was researching. They looked at the role of the guardians and the courts and have reframed what is deemed appropriate. The research concluded that contatc is not always in the best interest fo the child and therefore should not be supported or demanded by the courts. Check it out on www.nspcc.org.uk 

 

 

In my area, we do support supervised contact for a long time and in some of my cases this has been going on for over two years.

I agree that the courts need to consider the issue of contact and domestic violence and, as Lins stated, researchers have been asking for this matter to be considered for many years.

In the court, there does appear to be a presumption of contact as it is viewed to be in the 'best interests of the child', irrespective of the father's relationship with the child/ren.  The presumption of contact can also assume that men want to retain a positive relationship wiht their child/ren, rather than considering that it may be a reflection of his desire to continue to control both the woman and the child/ren.  It has been suggested that it might be more useful to explore the notion of 'responsible parenting', rather than 'parental rights' within the context of contact.

 In terms of moving this forward, I support the on-going research into this area, and also think that we need to be more directive in reports sometimes. I am currently writing a report and will not be recommending any more contact for children with a parent due to their distress in the contact, however, I am aware that this will be strongly contested. The flip side is that I have worked with children who have wanted to see their violent parent, but haven't wanted to let the other know this in case it upsets them, and these need to be managed in a way that supports both the child/ren and the non-violent parent.

 I'm not sure I answer all your points raised and I suspect, I have gone off at a tangent, as always!

Kymb's point about a presumption of contact is interesting. When the Children and Adoption Act 2006, which has given courts more tools to enforce and promote agreements between separating parents, was passing through parliament, there was a pitched battle on this issue. The Conservatives wanted to legislate to for some presumption of contact (with safeguards around domestic violence etc) saying this would be in the child's best interests, and the government saw this as compromsing the principle that the child's best interests are paramount. At the time Women's Aid said that a presumption of contact already existed in practice so the legislation needed to do more to safeguard children.

I am searching for the same answer for 14 years.

 Apparently, a father has his rights, whether he is an abuser or not.

 I feel it is sending out the wrong message to children too.

Family court is forcing them to have contact with abuser- so in a childs mind ABUSE IS REWARDED.

Also, childs natural instinct is to avoid danger- but the court is FORCING them into danger- again confusion for child, as it is going against what feels right.

Child is also being told- silently- it is OK to hit Mummy, because Judge is rewarding Daddy, and forcing her to take children to see him.

So, mother cannot ever escape fully, can she.??

The mother and children are actually kept in a cage by the court, and have no way to break free totally.

Lawyers know the abuser will always get contact, unless he kills the child.

Courts are allowing violence to continue all the time, by allowing the abuser the freedom to dominate and control the abused using children as the pawns.

No one seems to understand this or bother to address it either.

As one abuser said to me- You can never escape me, the LAW is always on my side.

Contact is always presumed in family law.

They are using Gardners theories of course, as that is what is taught to them in conferences.

Perhaps it is time for them to think for themselves.

Gardners threat therapy has no place in todays world in my view, but Patriarchal Judges still use it as do CAFCASS.

I discovered an alarming thing being taught to CAFCASS officers too- ALL WOMEN MAKE UP DV?

That came from the top down, and is a real cause for concern for me anyway.

kymb21

Great to see your level of understanding in all this.

Sometimes, if children want to see violent parent, it is out of fear,,,,stockholm syndrome sometimes.

There is always the Fear that the court will make children have contact with violent parent, and if they say No, they feel they may pay the price or Mother might.

I do know several children, who have said they felt they were forced to say Yes to contact, and they were tricked by questions which presumed yes as the answer.

In law, there is still very archaic thinking about children- obeying Father- as he is the boss.

It is Victorian, and will take time for us to evolve to where we reward Love, tenderness and not violence.

The Guardian's role is to see the childs interests are looked after, but that is not the case in 99% of cases.

The Guardian mostly tries to get the child to the violent parent any way they can.

Often parents are locked in prison for failing to drag children by the hair to contact.

That is alarming, but true.

If parents drags child by the hair, kicking and screaming, then that is abuse, but that parent is obeying the court order.

What a message to be giving the abuser and our next generation.

Patriarchal men and women see no harm in placing children in a Fear Zone.

They have no idea how it affects their adrenal glands and their brains either.

Some do actually know, and get a kick out of watching the reactions, becuase, while invisible to others, they are actually feeding off the adrenalin like a vampires.

All the knowledge is there for all, and can be used for the positive or negative.

Many adults do not know how to inner parent, and when the sadistic inner child is let loose - others suffer.

It is often children, because they are defenseless.

This post has been deleted.