In Crisis - Am I missing something?

backinbusiness

Mummyperson - what your partner is subjecting you (and your child) to is not reasonable. As you've said, when you are immersed in a situation it's sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees. You sound fundamentally strong to me, but a bit confused at present. Please, please think about getting out of your situation - it doesn't sound healthy. Take care and best wishes

gizmo111

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

if the OP has a DV to his name, i suspect he is using psycological abuse now, hence your not going to ask the CTB repayments to be lowered because he has said this to you possibly.

a man who sticks his family through deprivation and wont let YOU get any help in lowering the payments is purely beyond me. i'm male 3 children and wouldnt think of dishing all my money to an over payment i know could be paid off at a lower rate.

OP the DV is a starter to get out of there, the door is open for the Social services to come in with DV cases at anytime, the SS is primarily there to protect your child not you, if anything happens again, and you go back to him, they have suffciant grounds for a care order to gain guardianship of your child, because you will then be subjecting your child to that enviroment. dont mean to scare you but my friend has had dealings with SS. and not even through DV.

Just to clarify s17 children act 1989 is about children in need and is not there to give money for nappies etc that is what benefits are for, however a call to an out of hours team would not let a child go hungry or without basic essentials and they would give £5 or £10 to tide over, social workers have no influence on benefits or crisis loan decisions, I've spent many hours on the phone pleading for a change in decision or to speed up payments with very little results.
Regards the DV I am assuming that with the OP's partners conviction then social services have been involved and the case has been closed after initial assessments or short term intervention.
Regarding Care Orders this is a long legal process and not something that happens overnight or as a result of one incident, the local authority do not get guardianship of the child, initally if an Interim Care Order is agreed by the court then they share PR with the childs parents, the child will be placed away from the parents usually for ongoing assessment and potential to change, after around 40 weeks a final hearing will be held and if a final care order is granted then the Local Authority and th parents jointly share PR however in this case the LA are the drivers.
One incident of DV would not meet the threshold for care proceedings and it would be nigh on impossible at this stage to prove it is happening given the information the OP has given us. I agree it seems that she is still being subjected to it but in a very subtle and undermining way which is the characteristic of a huge amount of emotional DV.
I'm sorry your friend has had difficulties with SS, if I can help at all please PM me.

S17 http://saferchildrenyork.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=89

atrixblue.-MFR-.

gizmo111 wrote: »

Just to clarify s17 children act 1989 is about children in need and is not there to give money for nappies etc that is what benefits are for, however a call to an out of hours team would not let a child go hungry or without basic essentials and they would give £5 or £10 to tide over, social workers have no influence on benefits or crisis loan decisions, I've spent many hours on the phone pleading for a change in decision or to speed up payments with very little results.
Regards the DV I am assuming that with the OP's partners conviction then social services have been involved and the case has been closed after initial assessments or short term intervention.
Regarding Care Orders this is a long legal process and not something that happens overnight or as a result of one incident, the local authority do not get guardianship of the child, initally if an Interim Care Order is agreed by the court then they share PR with the childs parents, the child will be placed away from the parents usually for ongoing assessment and potential to change, after around 40 weeks a final hearing will be held and if a final care order is granted then the Local Authority and th parents jointly share PR however in this case the LA are the drivers.
One incident of DV would not meet the threshold for care proceedings and it would be nigh on impossible at this stage to prove it is happening given the information the OP has given us. I agree it seems that she is still being subjected to it but in a very subtle and undermining way which is the characteristic of a huge amount of emotional DV.
I'm sorry your friend has had difficulties with SS, if I can help at all please PM me.

S17 http://saferchildrenyork.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=89

answer me this. if DV isnt a provision for SS to get a care order wich can happen overnight, emergency care order! so lets clear that up. why do SS take babie's away from loving home's. even interviening even before a child is born? i can certainly point you to many many cases where SS have taken a baby away from its mother not long after birth, leaving mums and dads to be, to flee this country in order to have their child and be left in peace to love and cherish them without having to go through the hush hush family court's to do battle with SS who subject innocent parents to gruelling psycological tests, dig up family pasts and conditions, mounchousen syndrome being one of SS favourate ploys.

dont tell me DV isnt a provision for a care order, a case is never closed to SS, if the OP OH decided to flip out and take it out on her, holding baby or not and she went to the police, they would refure the case of DV to SS, SS will then check for past occurances! case reopened! OP decides to forgive, but SS will see it another way go into court for an emergency care order then back to the OP with police to remove that child without the OP knowing what was going on behind her back.

you may gloss over it to reassure things like this dont happen but you and me both know what can really happen.

Kimitatsu

Gizoo gives up her time to post on these threads given her expertise in this area. She is NOT here to answer to every bad decision or to answer to the foibles of the law.

Mummyperson have pmd you - please please think about contacting womens aid to get the support you need.

Thread closed as the original question has been answered