Should the children removed from mothers who are the victims of domestic violence

[no_hypocrisy]

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

be returned to the mother after she escapes her cycle of violence or should the children be adopted?

That's the case I'm working on now. My client was both a victim of domestic violence and coercive control by her husband for more than a decade. He strangled her. She called the police. Child protection removed the children. She lost time by not being given appropriate services to help her escape from her husband but she did it on her own. She now is divorced, gained two professional vocational certificates and can raise the children as a single mother.

But child protection is claiming that she is incorrigible because she "won't take responsibility" for her husband's hitting their children. (Note: It was never established what "hitting" meant, whether it was acceptable discipline or beating, because she never saw unusual markings on her children when she bathed them, she didn't see him "hit" the kids, and the kids never told her.)

Do you agree with Child Protection that a woman who is the victim of domestic violence is forever an "unfit mother" and her children shouldn't be returned to her no matter how much she has rehabilitated her life?

[peacebird]

1. Dear gawd... What an awful decision to have to make. Questions: how long have they been apart?

Are the kids together and in a good place where they are loved and can remain permanently? How old were the kids when they were taken away? And finally, what do the children say THEY want to do?
Awful, horrible, very bad and very hard decision to make....
<hugs>

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Children all together, safe.

Here's the rub. They've been in foster care for more than three years with a move up on middle class amenities like a pool in the back yard, fun trips, all the food they can eat, etc.

The foster parents "put in a bid" to adopt one month after the kids arrived.

We know the kids have been coached and "out of the blue", they profess that they want to be adopted, notwithstanding their mother has never missed a visit with them, bringing them food and presents each time. They understand they will never see their mother again. Their answers are uniform and exaggerated. It's that obvious.

Again, should a mother who's also the victim of domestic violence be deemed an unfit parent? If the premise is that she'll never be able to move anywhere, never be able to take appropriate measures to "protect" her children from their father, does that doom her? (BTW, this mother will live 700+ miles away from her abuser and he has neither transportation nor money to come to her geographical region.)

[Stargazer09]

4. This is wrong

The mom was doing everything that she needed to do, and she deserves to have her children returned to her.

The foster parents are obviously desperate to keep the kids, despite the fact that their mother has worked very hard to improve her situation, and despite the fact that the kids probably don't want to lose their mom. That bothers me a great deal. The foster parents seem selfish to me, considering how quickly they wanted to adopt them, and how desperate they are to keep them. There is something fishy about that.

[BlueToTheBone]

3. No.

Children want and need their biological parent more than it is imagined. I had 3 children (CASA) whose mother was a meth addict. They left her gladly, but they mourned the loss of their mother even though she had pimped them for drugs.

So, just because the mother was beaten, her children should not be deprived of her care.

[WingDinger]

5. Same catch 22 as prison. You cant get parole, unless you admit guilt.

So, if you fight for your innocence, you will rot in prison for your recalcitrance.

[kdmorris]

6. No..OMG...No

If I had even suspected that there was a hint of a shadow of a chance that calling the police would result in my children being taken from me, I would have let my ex-husband beat me until I could get out of there on my own. As it was, I was told by the police in early 1992 that if I left any (of my three) child in the house with my ex-husband when I left, he would get custody of all of them.

In pre-1992 Maryland, restraining orders were hard to come by and you could only get them for 2 weeks. In October of 1992, Maryland passed a law that gave 6 months and allowed the battered spouse to get custody of the children and the home. By November, I was out of there, got my restraining order, custody and had to apply for welfare and food stamps.

I don't understand why they didn't provide help to the ENTIRE family (mother and children) to get them safe. Where is the concern for her safety/well-being/emotional stability?

In the time before, during and just after leaving my ex-husband, I was literally suicidal and would have killed myself if not for my children. If the state had removed the incentive to stay alive (allowed them to be adopted), I would not be here today.

Responsibility - how many times did this woman see that her husband was getting angry at a child and distract him enough to take the beating herself rather than let him hit her child?

Sorry... this infuriates me.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. That's one of the problems with this case.

We DON'T KNOW how many times or IF the father hit the kids as well as my client. The only ones who know the truth are my client, her ex-husband, and the kids. What if my client truly didn't see the kids getting hit because they weren't hit? By that I mean, they were given an allowed swat on the behind or they weren't "beaten"? My skepticism is heightened as I believe my client and she said she never saw marks, scars, welts, bruises, swellings, lacerations, redness, etc. on any of the children that were noteworthy when she bathed them. She was strangled BECAUSE she was going to the aid of a crying child whom she suspected was "hit" by his father. He jumped up and strangled her.

[kdmorris]

8. In my case...my ex-husband never hit my kids

(that I know of, but I never left them alone with him, either. He would not allow me to have a job, so the only time I was away from them is when I had another baby and I was in the hospital). It wasn't until AFTER I left and he got visitation that things started happening (for which he hasn't seen them in 16 years.). My ex-husband did believe in spanking and did spank my daughters, but that was allowed under Maryland law. If that was considered endangerment or abuse, then they need to take away all the other kids who were spanked, too. Unfortunately, the children are likely not reliable witnesses anymore. I think research has proven that you can get kids to believe anything if you tell them enough times it happened.

I'm so sorry she is going through this. It must be devastating and I really hope that she wins them back.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. My colleague and I have been representing her for free since October, 2010.

We want the kids back almost as much as she does.

Thanks for your thoughts. They're heartening.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. WE GOT THE KIDS BACK, ALL OF THEM!!!

The Court dismissed the application for termination of parental rights. The children are going to spend their summer vacation with their mother in Virginia Beach, maybe longer if not permanently.

Sweet Justice!

[Catherina]

11. I am so happy to read this post!

I was mentally composing a real rant and then I saw this wonderful news.

You. Are. Awesome.

[Marrah_G]

14. I'm really happy for all of you

[CreekDog]

16. that's great news, the story was heartbreaking

but the prospects looked even worse!

[LeftyMom]

12. I used to work for a foster agency, and I knew of some cases like this.

In some (most?) cases the partner of the abusive caregiver absolutely does know about the abuse, and conceals, makes excuses or even participates to some degree. As is typical in abusive family situations of any sort, there can be a lot of self-deception involved, or victim blaming, or just plain refusal to see the signs. Often if they extricate themselves from the situation they'll pair up with another abuser, because whatever's broken in them that attracts abusers will still be broken. It's amazing the number of kids who wind up right back in foster care, and it's not fair to the kids.

For that matter, I think you're unfairly characterizing the situation, as I've never heard of a CPS agency anywhere that declares DV victims irredeemably unfit. Heck, it takes years to get CPS to declare physical abusers unfit (or incorrigible drug addicts, molesters, people who can't stay out of jail for long enough to make a sandwich) and stop trying to reconcile their families.

It's important to be on the look out for dysfunction on the non-abusive parent if that dysfunction is part of the abusive situation.

PS There is no "acceptable" level of hitting children.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. I understand what you're saying and

I'm repeating the statements made in court, in court documents. Child Protection advocated for the termination of parental rights of my client because they speculated that she was lying when she said she didn't know her husband was hitting the kids and that she couldn't ever break free of him and the cycle of DV.

The judge found that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect. He further found that my client's husband exercised corporal punishment/discipline that was allowed by the law. Therefore she didn't see anything because there wasn't anything to see.

The children have been returned to her for summer vacation, perhaps longer and the termination complaint was dismissed.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Short Answer? No.

It sounds to me like the courts did the right thing, here. Excellent.