Gender biased family services: killing children in the UK

The reports of Filicide, the murder by a mother of her child, are all over the news this week.

Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Hamzah Khan, Keanu Williams being just four names that are engraved upon our consciousness, not just because of their untimely deaths, but because of the nature of the suffering inflicted upon them before they died.

Collective handwringing is in evidence up and down the land and who is to blame is being widely discussed.  The sight of the Head of Birmingham Children’s Safeguarding Board attempting to squirm out of the reality of her responsibility for allowing yet another death of a child to happen on her watch, was excrutiating on the BBC news last night.  Her words, in a statement released this week scream out the reality of why children are dying.

‘I wish, on behalf of all the statutory agencies who sit on the Board to express very deep regret and distress about Keanu’s death. We apologise unequivocally for what were totally unacceptable and unnecessary failures both collectively and individually in every organisation which had contact with Keanu. We fully accept all the findings of the Serious Case Review and the recommendations made.

Keanu died because there was failure across every agency to see, hear and respond to him in the context of what he was experiencing at any one point in time. Staff were distracted by his mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.’

Staff were distracted by his mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.  In other words, a systemic use of gender biased practice which focuses practitioners not on the needs of children, but on the rights and needs of women.  If ever there was proof needed that social work and our children and family services are,  as a very senior social worker said recently, a ‘feminist industry’, this is it.  Gender biased family services, upholding the rights and needs of women above those of children, are killing those children in a neighborhood near you and until we name it, we are never going to stop it.

I have been watching the terrible stories about children being murdered with an enormous sadness as well as a growing rage about what is being said and done about these  tragedies.  On the twittersphere, the debate about these women rages from sympathy for the ‘vulnerable women’ that they are analysed to be by domestic violence workers to the ‘evil bitches’ they are considered to be by some in the men’s rights movement.  In between, the reality that anyone, be it mother or father, who murders a child and leaves his body to rot in a bedroom, is frankly, seriously ill and dangerous not only to children but to their own self and others, appears to be missed.  Much like the dad who takes his children and murders them in a country lane by poisoning them with carbon monoxide, these people are unwell and need to be a) recognised and spotted quickly and  b) removed from society for their own and other people’s safety.

Not in the feminist industry of social work, family services and domestic violence it seems.  In this land, mothers who kill their children are not responsible, must have done it because a man has made them and most of all are vulnerable and in desperate need of support.  Whilst I have no doubt that a woman who leaves her child’s body to rot, or who beats her child so badly that even she is surprised he is not taken into care, are doing so because something in their psychology has snapped, I do not consider that their needs and their psychological state comes before that of the child that they murder.  Somewhere, somehow, the feminist industry of children and family services has got its priorities very very badly wrong.  Surely, as the strapline goes, we should be ‘putting children first?’  Not in Birmingham it seems, or any of the other Local Authorities whose Social Service departments have presided over gender biased services which allow women to kill children because of the belief that wherever there is violence there has to be a man somewhere.

NSPCC stats demonstrate over and over again that mothers kill their children in equal numbers to dads, though to watch the NSPCC spokesman wriggling in discomfort at the reality of that was an eye opener on the BBC news last night.  The truth is that no-one, anywhere, (apart from Erin Pizzey) appears to want to acknowledge or face the reality that women are violent and can and do harm others, including their own children just as men are violent and can and do harm others, including their own children.  Where men and women are harming each other as well as their own children, it is likely to be the result of intergenerational family violence, the kind which involves physical harm done by parents to children as part of violent world.  Cycles of violence which are about mothers as well as fathers being dangerous and mothers as well as fathers being in need of intervention to break the cycle and teach new, non violent responses to the stresses and strains of daily life.  When practitioners come to their work equipped with that kind of knowledge and experience they will stop looking at meeting the needs of women BEFORE children and will start to understand that children are vulnerable in the care of their mothers, whether or not there is a man around or domestic violence is an issue.

Gender biased family services kill kids by working from the feminist perspective of seeing a woman who is vulnerable instead of a woman who is dangerous to her children. Gender biased family services kill kids by refusing to look the reality in the face, that mothers can and do kill their children and intervention to prevent it starts with believing it.  Gender biased services kill kids because they spend too much time looking for a man to blame and seeing domestic violence as the root cause of all dangers to children.

The children who die at the hands of their mothers are the vulnerable ones, not the other way around and we should be acting to support them first before we analyse and excuse maternal responsibility.  I have no doubt whatsoever that women, like men who kill their children, need an awful lot of work doing to reverse the impact of being so divorced from their own humanity, that they can act without thinking and often without remorse.  Alice Miller, who wrote widely about intergenerational child abuse was unequivocal about the impact of abuse on children and she recognised and named the reality;   kids who are abused are at risk of going on to abuse in their own adult lives if we do not offer the kind of support and intervention that stops it.

That is where our time and money must go, to prevent kids from from being murdered and abused by women as well as men.  And we must do it through gender aware services that recognise the danger that they are in from either or both of their parents.

Only by doing so will we stop the institutionalised murder of another generation of children by a feminist industry which  puts the rights and needs of women first and children a long way last.

40 comments

  1. Anonymous · October 4, 2013

    I remember back in 2007 when I was trawling the list of local Solicitors for one that would support my proposal of shared parenting. I came across a Solicitor who told me I had no chance of the law supporting my proposal, in her experience alcoholic mothers were preferred to normal fathers. As much as I argued parenting was a skill and shouldn’t be viewed as something gender dependant none of the Solicitors I visited seemed to have any concept of what I was talking about.
    The idea that I would become merely a visitor to my own children was something they seemed to accept as the norm, without question.
    Subsequently I have become stunned by how society accepts this imbalanced view of the family.
    A lot of corrective work needs to be done.

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Indeed, a lot of corrective work must take place in order that we reverse the madness that has become the world of the post separation family, where, as you say, fathers are pushed to the outer fringes of their childrens lives and seen as either visitors or nuisances or in the worst cases, as controlling people who wish to have a relationship with their children in order to continue controlling the children’s mother. The power and control wheel and the Duluth model, long discredited in other countries, are being taught to family support workers who are then out there, working with families, putting women’s rights and needs first. Its wrong, its not about supporting families, its not about equality, its everything to do with women’s rights. Its time it was seen for what it is and stopped in my view. Social Worker, like all family support work, should be about strengthening the adult capacity to care and nurture children, not uphold the rights of women over men and certainly not uphold the rights of women over children. K

      Like

    • Mike · October 8, 2013

      I had the same experience. I was told by my solicitor that the mother needed to show herself unreliable and dangerous for several years before the court would entertain the idea of shared residency. At the time, I assumed that this was because they did not want to create high expectations when I was paying them; but I no longer doubt that it is true.

      Like

  2. Anthony · October 4, 2013

    ‘I have seen no mention of Keanu’s father in any of the reporting of this tragic
    incident. Was he around?

    Was he being kept away by Ms Shuttleworth?

    Did social services make any attempt to contact the father ?

    I suspect that they would have focussed all of their energy on the mother and
    completely ignored the possibility that the boy’s father could be of help. This
    is an endemic blindness in social services, their training does not seem
    to consider fathers useful in any way.

    The use of dads is a quick and inexpensive gain that should be one of the first
    avenues that is explored…instead they are totally ignored by Social Services.’

    Above is a quote by Alain Williams- not my words..though i totally agree with him. Come to that- i have not heard the word ‘father’ mentioned in any of the other tragic cases…WHY NOT??

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Not sure about Keanu’s father Anthony, though Hamzah’s father, when arrested for domestic violence told the police that his son needed to see a GP. Sadly the DV was considered an issue which appears to have overridden all else, as in so many cases that I work with. In cases where DV is claimed, that is the sole focus of all practitioners in my view, it overrides all concerns about a mother, all concerns about her capacity to care and contextualises any short comings in her behaviour or parenting as that of being caused by DV. So, any woman who experiences DV, however that DV is categorised, be it fighting between woman and man, end of relationship violence or otherwise, is seen as ‘vulnerable’ and her actions are excused because of that and the father’s voice is silenced completely. This, in my view, renders children completely vulnerable because it removes all responsibilities from mothers and seeks only to locate blame and responsibility upon men. What we know from studies of DV however are that where violence happens between men and women, women are more likely to also be violent towards children as part of a cycle of using violence in the everyday world. What the DV lobby would like us all to believe is that all women in DV situations are being controlled and coerced and all women in DV situations are therefore not responsible for their actions. Its just so far wide of the truth that I cannot understand why we have allowed this nonsense to become part of the mythology of our family services.

      Like

    • Nick Langford · October 5, 2013

      Keanu’s father was Steve Yeoman, who seems to have done an exclusive deal with ITV. When he and Keanu’s mother separated he was allowed only occasional contact. It does seem that the fathers in these cases have usually been excluded before the abuse begins.

      Like

  3. Kat · October 4, 2013

    I too have been following these stories with great dismay. One thing that will stay with me is the appearance of Hamzah Kahn’s father in court and the tapes of the police interview with him when he was arrested for domestic violence: “Please get a doctor to check my son, that is all I want” Clearly the police did not act on this appropriately.

    Another thing that has stayed with me is the apparent lack of co-operation. In my home country police, school and social services all get involved when issues arise. In the Pelka case, if only that had happened you would hope that some suspicion of the mother’s story had resulted.

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Its just ghastly to think that the child’s father was asking for help for his son and no-one listened. DV appears to blindside everyone where-ever it is mentioned. I have had experience of this in Local Authorities, when DV is mentioned everyone is silenced and only the needs of the woman who has alleged it are considered from that point onwards. In my experience, DV has become a tool of such enormous power that to even say that DV can be used as a false allegation is evidence that one condones violence against women.

      I do not condone violence against women or men.

      And I don’t condone violence against children.

      But watching the head of Birmingham’s Safeguarding Children Board squirming around the issue of women killing their children made me wonder what her agenda really is. Safeguarding Children Board? Safeguarding Women Board would be a more accurate description.

      Its time this feminist industry cleaned its act up and time the rest of us realised what the hand that rocks the cradle is truly capable of.

      Like

      • Mike · October 8, 2013

        Karen, I’m afraid that as a man, this father would have had to go through the usual hurdles of applying to for a court order to get his son seen by a GP. That’s why nobody listened to him, I suspect. Although fathers have something called ‘parental responsibility’, it is actually meaningless. Also, the health industry is actually one of the biggest perpetrators of this form of sexism (or what I’ve heard termed ‘father abuse’).

        Like

  4. Paul D Manning · October 4, 2013

    Hello Karen.

    In view of your suggestion, (or can we refer to it as a fact?) that UK social services are indeed gender biased in favour of the mother and her needs (and I take from this that it is being applied to mothers in reality) then I wonder what the true Filicide statistics would have been without that help and bias applied? My own belief is that the statistics show that more mothers murder their children than do fathers, although this may be a close 50/50. Therefore, if it is that abusing mothers have been helped, and in turn let us presume that this help prevented them from harming or killing their kids, then without that help surely we can extrapolate that even more kids would have been murdered by mothers. My point is this, we fathers receive little help or consideration from these authorities or the Family courts, we are viewed as guilty until proven innocent, we have little input into our children’s lives once a mother gets custody of our children… What I’m saying is that we aren’t there anyway, so we do not receive that help as do mothers, and yet the child murder statistics are as they are, about 50/50. Without the aforementioned factors what would the real stats be then? I wonder? The mother bias you mention I believe is being applied, and all because we are the male of the species, therefore beware of us, for we must have the greater potential to harm out kids and our mates! Utter Rubbish!

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      The reality, in my experience is Paul, that you are guilty BECAUSE you are a man and you are dangerous BECAUSE you are a man. In a feminist industry, which is concerned only with the rights of women (not equality with men), your role as a father is analysed as being that of either a) a danger b) a potential danger c) a potential future danger d) a potential danger at some point in the future which cannot currently be specified but could, at some point arise e) so potentially dangerous at some point in the future that cannot be specified, that it is better to get rid of you now than wait for that point in the future that cannot be specified. Best err on the side of caution when it comes to dads and give the kids to women, who never, ever, harm or kill their children either now or in any possible future and, when they do, are not to be held accountable for their actions because somewhere in the background, that potential danger from a man will have surely been the cause of it. Madness? Its so mad even I can barely cope with it. K

      Like

  5. Jane Moore · October 4, 2013

    My son has residency of his son since 2011…the residency case didnt appear to be going our way at the time, that is until we highlighted in court the OFSTED report that stated our local authority had failed the children in their care, my grandson was one of those children. At that point there were a lot of phone calls and the Social Worker did a complete uturn and recommended that my son be given residency! It was without doubt the right decision but it is my opinion that this decision was reached not because it was in my grandsons best interests but out of a desire to protect themselves.

    My son is again before the courts, back in November it came to our notice that the mother was being investigated for physically abusing her other child, a ten year old girl. The school had reported this and it was also witnessed by my grandson. In December she was raided by police and a cannabis farm was discovered in what was the bedroom used by my grandson on his overnight stays. She was also in a relationship with a man freshly out of prison for domestic violence and arson. These are the reasons my son suspended contact at that time….whilst recognising my grandsons right to a relationship with his mother and sibling we tried to facilitate supervised contact.

    The mother saw fit to apply for enforcement of her contact order at this point and my son applied for variance of the contact at the same time, this is currently going through court. Whilst CAFCASS highlighted serious safeguarding concerns in the schedule 2 the Social Services in the section 7, far from supporting my son, have played down all of the issues, claiming they were historic when they are in fact ongoing, accepted the mothers denial of drug use and believed her when she said she was no longer in a relationship with the ex con, even though we had provided evidence to the contrary.

    The mother is at the moment at Crown Court answering to the drug cultivation and supply, her co accused, the boyfriend who she says she isn’t with….her mitigation, that she needed money to pay off her cocaine debt!

    Meanwhile overnight stays are to re start this weekend… When we spoke to The Social Worker about the latest revelations at Crown Court she stated that she had lots of parents on drugs and it didn’t mean they weren’t good parents! When we asked for overnight stays to be deferred until after the mothers court case, the judge didn’t feel that was necessary, our argument that she may receive a custodial sentence and stopping and starting overnight stays would therefore be detrimental fell on deaf ears.

    I wonder what the outcome might have been had the situation been reversed and it was the father that was trying to enforce contact after hitting a child and who’s home had been turned into a cannabis farm with a girlfriend that had convictions for domestic violence against a partner and arson for attempting to set him on fire! Actually no I don’t wonder, I know…..all contact would have been stopped indefinately!

    Like

    • Paul D Manning · October 4, 2013

      Hi Jane.

      You speak the truth Jane, I have done nothing, absolutely nothing to harm my son, except love him and cherish him as his main carer from his birth. Yet I have been cut out of his life completely on the most ridiculous reasons due to the crystal ball effect of a Psychologist stating “Possible future harm”. It goes without saying now that the family courts set the high jump far higher for fathers than mothers, and what you state proves it. No wonder fathers go about demonstrating and targeting works of art to try to get justice, e.g…. Hay Wain?

      Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Hi Jane,

      I could say I am speechless at hearing your story but I am not and yes, without doubt, a father facing all of those charges would be eradicated from his child’s life in the blink of an eye. I cannot imagine what you are going through in your efforts to protect your precious family. Sending my support to you all. K

      Like

  6. Nick Woodall (@woodall_nick) · October 4, 2013

    ‘the agencies were so focused on helping Hutton – believing she was a victim of domestic abuse – that they were oblivious to the threat she posed to her son’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443626/Hamzah-Khan-death-Amanda-Huttons-threatened-son-24-let-boy-starve-death.html#ixzz2gl1m68Qz

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Though it is reported by the Daily Mail which we are all supposed to hate at the moment…….it says it all.

      Like

  7. Barry · October 4, 2013

    I suspect that statistics for the mistreatment of children by parents are not to dissimilar to the injury incident pyramid in the workplace.

    Quote “Near Misses – Unsafe Acts are the bottom of the pyramid. There are thousands of these. These are things such as not wearing your seatbelt on a forklift. Not putting your machine in ESP while clearing a jam, not wearing cut resistant gloves while putting on a cutting die or changing slotter blades.

    Next up are Recordable Injuries. These are injuries that require more than basic first aid. The injury may require a prescription anti-biotic, physical therapy, a few sutures and things that are above and beyond first aid treatment. For all the thousands of near misses and unsafe acts, sooner or later it will result in an injury that requires this type of treatment.

    Next up are Life Changing injuries. For every 600 recordable injuries statistically, year after year, industry after industry, there will be 30 life changing injuries. That is 5%. These are injuries such as amputations, major surgeries, broken bones and the like. These types of injuries will change your life and those who depend on you.

    And finally at the top there is a fatal injury. For every 30 life changing injuries, there will be one fatal injury.” ends…

    It seems a fair assumption to make that for every child that is killed by a parent, many more who are further down the pyramid will be suffering thoroughly miserable lives. Both men and women are capable of abuse, but in a female dominated society that sees no value in fatherhood, and seems incapable of connecting cause and effect, the real story is unlikely to come out.

    According to NSPCC Chief Andrew Flanagan on the subject of mothers leaving children home alone, he says, “child neglect is an all too common occurrence with around 21,000 children currently on a the child protection register in Britain for this very reason,” Repeat – for this very reason – when will someone say this on prime time TV so that we can all hear it loud and clear!

    It would be nice to think better times are ahead. Unfortunately with government held in a stranglehold by the women’s lobby, egged on by the United Nations feminist division, and simultaneously counting the number of women’s votes ready for the election in 2015, nothing will change. That isn’t pessimism. That’s reality, and unless someone with the courage of their convictions calls out the government, tells the feminist/Marxists to put a sock in it, and demands evidence based family policies on what is known to give the best outcomes for children, then expect a tsunami of child misery and more child murders.

    The cause, the path, the trajectory and the outcomes are plainly visible. Society becomes so dysfunctional that government will have no option but to remove all children from parents at birth, fulfilling the fantasies of die hard socialist control freaks from Plato to Bertrand Russell and more recently Anthony Giddens. Problem-reaction-solution. They are on the right path so why would they be persuaded to change course?

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Its a meta view Barry, most of us are working at the micro level though.

      For me its about feminist failure to face the reality that women are dangerous too.

      K

      Like

  8. Rhys G · October 4, 2013

    The poor kid’s father said it all in a nutshell on the news tonight, despite the reporter’s hamfisted attempts to lay blame at his feet. He knew as a father that he had been pushed to the sidelines and that the authorities, police and social services, did not take him seriously.

    Whilst one attempts not to draw distinctions between fathers and mothers in making the argument that both parents are, in principle, of equal importance and are equally capable of parenting, it is impossible to avoid the fact that the marginalizing experience of this father will be shared by many fathers but I suspect, very few mothers.

    What does it take to get politicians to sit up and take notice of what is so plain to see? Many parents try the democratic route of attempting to discuss such issues with a member of parliament or government departments and almost inevitably points made fall on deaf ears. Even this website, eminently forward thinking though it is, has made little difference in reality. The forthcoming Children and Families Act will do nothing to prevent more parents, predominantly fathers, being separated needlessly from their children because judges will continue to be able to give voice in closed courtrooms to the same type of deep seated prejudices that resulted in this current catastrophe. I would not have believed such things possible had I not heard a judge stating that he would award custody to a relocating mother since the children’s wellbeing was, in his opinion, dependant on the mother’s happiness. Refusing relocation or custody would allegedly result in such unhappiness to the mother that the children would suffer as a consequence. This is the sort of claptrap that is peddled in court which nobody gets to hear about because of continuing family court secrecy. These arguments are made even when there is no tested supporting evidence, or even when a Cafcass report contradicts them. It typifies the attitude of not putting the mother under the same scrutiny which is at the root of this country’s disastrous family law practice.

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      The narrative of feminism which governs this field goes like this…

      The world is dominated by the Patriarchy. This is a system which advantages men simply for being men. That is why men rule the world, earn more money, head up the biggest organisations. Men, by being men, are programmed to oppress women, when men reach puberty they become potential rapists, all men are, by virtue of their sex, potential rapists. Men must be oppressed in order to ensure that women can achieve all of the same things that men can achieve. If men are not oppressed, they will rise up and dominate women again. Men do not love their children in the same way as women, it is impossible for men to love their children in the same way as women because of biology. Women however, are oppressed by their biology, so children must be cared for by the state in order that women achieve the same as men. Women are not violent, men are. Wherever there is violence a man is responsible. Women who harm men are doing so because they are oppressed and reacting to that oppression. Women only kill their partners in self defence. Women do not kill their children and when they do its because a man has made them do it. Women are oppressed by the family which is a patriarchal structure and must be free to leave that structure whenever or however they choose. Women must be free to take their children with them and any man who stops them from doing that is controlling and violent. Women must have access at all times to money and decision making power, they must, after separation, be able to control the children’s relationship with a father and demand financial support from him. If he will not comply with those demands, the state must beat him into compliance on behalf of the woman. This is because all men are reckless and feckless and unable to honour their responsibilities, this is coded in their DNA. Women’s DNA on the other hand is coded with nurture, care and love and every hapenny that a woman receives will go straight into the mouths of her child, always bypassing the woman’s own personal hunger and need for shoes. All single parents are women who are starving, scrubbing floors for a living without shoes. All children living in single parent households have no shoes. This is because men will not pay for food and shoes, this is coded in the DNA of said men. Men are advantaged and always have shoes in a Patriarchal system. Men must be oppressed and their shoes must be removed. Only when all men are without shoes will the world of family separation be fair and equal. Men without shoes may be allowed to have small pockets of ‘contact’ with their children in a ‘contact centre’ situation. Children will only be allowed said contact with men without shoes ‘where it safe to do so.’ The Patriarchy is in control and always watching, the Duleth Model is a tool with which Patriarchy can be defeated. You are a victim of Patriarchy when your first date with a man with shoes is chosen by said man with shoes. Always be vigilant, the Patriarchy will rise up and dominate again when you least expect it.

      I jest. You get my drift. K

      Like

      • Nick Langford · October 5, 2013

        Spot on as ever, but if a man were to say that…

        Like

      • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

        I can only say it Nick because I lived and breathed it and fortunately recovered from it…

        Like

  9. Anonymous · October 5, 2013

    Hamzah’s father, Aftab Khan: “Nobody would listen to me”

    https://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/a-story-of-our-time

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

      Quite. The resonance is chilling. K

      Like

  10. Yvie · October 5, 2013

    And let’s not forget the psychological damage that many mother inflict on their children in their efforts to push fathers to the fringe of their children’s lives, or even eliminate fathers from their children’s lives. No statistics on the outcome of psychological damage to children seem to have been collected and mothers are free poison the minds of their children without ever being called to account.

    Like

  11. karenwoodall · October 5, 2013

    Without doubt Yvie, one day we will look at what we have done with absolute horror. K

    Like

  12. Vincent McGovern · October 5, 2013

    History and humanity has been here before many times. One group seek dominance over another. There is always a compelling ‘moral’ argument why they have to do so. Usually one side wins and the other loses. The first casualty is justice, this is done via language false statistics etc, then systems are created to correct? the alleged imbalance. The problem is human greed. Modern feminists have total and utter contempt for men and equality, they simply want everything, and then they complain because they did not always have everything. All wars have casualties, mostly innocent and in the above totally helpless innocent children.. That is exactly where we are now. You cannot solve a problem unless you recognise it, Erin Pizzey has for years, Karen Woodall also from a different perspective. So few to do so much. More of us need to start pushing for change away from “Child Endangering Gender Discrimination,” to Gender Neutral Impartial Professionalism” among childrens services.

    Like

  13. el dermo · October 5, 2013

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/hamzah-khan-child-deaths-sorrow-blame

    the comments section here is interesting. The article was obviously written after a few glasses of Chardonnay and the realisation that we are all looking for answers etc because this case does not fit into the skewed lens that is shared with the practitioners who where supposed to protect this child. More than a few of the commentators struggle too although a some are openly honest in their need to crucify dad. They are just as adept at hammering the nails into dads wrists as they are at hammering the square peg of their ideology into the harsh realities of the post separation landscape.

    Like

  14. Nick Langford · October 6, 2013

    I read on the Grauniad webshite today that a book is to be published next year outlining an entirely new approach to social work: Reinventing Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work.

    Who is behind this admirable project? None other than Brigid Featherstone – whom I had the dubious pleasure of meeting at the CSJ earlier this year.

    Until social work is taken out of the hands of feminists there is no hope.

    Like

    • karenwoodall · October 6, 2013

      Ms Feathersone is a feminist researcher who is very well skilled at being offended by anyone who does not agree with her and is not averse to using feminist tactics of bullying by personal text message when she feels it necessary. According to Ms Featherstone, anyone who says that domestic violence is not a gender issue, is offensive and dangerous to children. I am sure her new book is full of how humane we should be in including fathers ‘where it is safe to do so.’ She is an advocate of fathers being reinvented to please feminists in my view, which says everything I need to know about the humanity of her work. K

      Like

  15. russellatintegratedinteriors · October 7, 2013

    Hi Karen

    Great article, does this go out in the public domain? If so the you will be getting trolls, which you already know you will and all because you dare to utter the truth.

    These, I shall use the term “feminists” loosely because, I don’t think that is what they really are, surely a true “feminist” wants to have equal rights with men and not superior rights?

    Maybe we need to coin a different term, let us call them “wimmin” to differentiate them from the many women out there who both love, care and enjoy the company of men and enjoy the reciprocal (interdependent) love, care and enjoyment that men have for women.

    The reason wimmin hate the truth spoken is because they cannot handle being told of the inequity that they have to establish to reach their “goals” i.e. the complete subjugation of men. However they have to subjugate and emancipate men so as to avoid any repercussions (which perversely there will be as sure as a cancer cell kills its host and thereby kills itself, its own life ensures its own downfall, but ultimately it is a destructive force such as you write about, it is not an enlightened force)

    And the real truth behind a wimmin’s lack of fibre is the reality, that, whilst they desperately want and cling to the notion that they HAVE to be totally “independent” of “men” and thereafter, so not be “controlled”, independent of everything, the reality of it is that they still “NEED” the money and have to obtain the money from “men” and/or also the “system” by some means or other, but in a way that they can feel that they have it because of “deserve” and not demand. Hence the system is set up to enable them to control the children to extract money from the fathers.

    I see this in my narcissistic borderline, personality disordered ex. And all of those “feminist” sorry wimmin out there are all of a similar personality trait, they fit the formula to some extent or other. (some men also fit this category and do the same thing but do not have the backing of the system so are less effective for it)

    Karen, from your writing I think you have never been NBPD as you can introspectively take a look at your values, and your personality is not wrapped up in your ideology, so you can have and have taken a different approach when you have realised that the “feminist” (wimmin driven) aim of your previous “feminist life” did not match your own values (and I presume that it was your hope that an equal society had a fair way forward)

    Get a job on an enlightened newspaper as a columnist and write there, that’ll set the cat amongst the proverbial

    Power to your elbow Karen

    Russ

    Like

  16. Andrew · October 8, 2013

    Sadly this will keep happening because social workers do not care. Social workers in my opinion think all dads are bad. It is so so sad… I just pray everyday my daughter will be ok…

    Like

  17. Tony · October 8, 2013

    You are definitely right that fatal abuse by mother is all over the news. Today again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24446126

    I too have experienced a warped bias that exists in our family law system. My child’s mother was in a relationship with a man that ‘local knowledge’ told me had just been released from prison for GBH on his ex partner, having served 3 years of a 6 year sentence for breaking bones. This man (secretly) moved in to the family home within a few weeks, even though I knew this to be so. I questioned her decision to allow this, which led to arguments, which led to contact being stopped and then limited to infrequent visits. I quickly began court proceedings. They lied and told CAFCASS and Social Services that they were no longer together. Both agencies were amazingly quick to accept this lie as truth with no question. He began smashing her car every time they argued. I knew this was happening because the town is small and I made it my business to know what was happening (my young child was at risk!) She was seen with black-eyes. Social Services and CAFCASS ignored both and accepted that I was probably just the trouble-making ex. In fact, they preferred to focus on the fabricated stories of my alleged abuse of her by me, while we were together. In all of this, I couldn’t believe that they were happy to make me the abuser!

    He eventually beat her up so badly that she was in hospital for a week and looked like Rocky Balboa at the end of one of his worst fights. He was arrested and charged with GBH with intent (a very serious charge). She was ‘warned’ by Social Services that she must keep away from him. Despite this warning, and my support throughout (once she had accepted the error of her ways), she eventually began visiting him in prison and then ultimately concocted a story with him, in which he did not attack her but instead, she was high on alcohol and class A drugs (whilst caring for young children) and she consequently ‘fell’ many times and sustained her injuries (yes she actually gave this to the police, and therefore SS and CAFCASS, in a written statement). He was apparently only at the scene to help her as she was severely injured and distressed, and they claimed that the Police only arrested him as they assumed that he had attacked her because he had 6 previous convictions for the same thing.

    CAFCASS backed off from the case (my application for shared residence) and handed the whole thing over to Social Services who were by now completely involved. CAFCASS did this because they were completely embarrassed by their hitherto totally relaxed attitude towards mother endangering her children. I personally hold them responsible for allowing my child to witness her mother be battered to a pulp by a violent criminal, all because of their gender bias. SS took over and gave mother every chance to wisen up and back off from her lover. They treated her as a victim all the way. Of course she was, in the sense that she had been badly beaten up by a very troubled, violent man, but on the other hand, she had chosen him over her children’s safety, and in this sense, she was the perpetrator and not the victim.

    He took his own life eventually. A very sad ending. In many ways, the authorities are not completely without blame for this either, as they could have stepped in very early on and acted differently but instead, they allowed the situation to spiral out of control, until ultimately, a woman was nearly killed, children experienced things they absolutely should not have, and a man lost his life. They failed to act because of gender bias.

    Like

  18. Paul · October 9, 2013

    Yes, you’re right, Paul, the system and the mother are equally to blame. But the “system” cannot take the blame or have its people punished. The mother is the fall guy and the system protects its own through a safety device called “Serious Case Review” and “lessons to be learned”. The sheer number of like incidents is such that serious case reviews are now a thoroughly discredited procedure. Lessons to be learned is an endlessly-repeated mantra devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Lessons are never learned because the unwritten, unacknowledged, anti-father policies they work to, are inherently harmful in their own right. But they cannot be changed because the gods above, won’t allow it. And so other children will needlessly suffer and die. These impudent people have no sense of guilt or shame.

    A serious case review here need look no further than the poignant remarks you quote of the father. That is all those people need to know.

    Like

    • Anonymous · March 4, 2015

      I have recently lost residence of my son to his farther, who for over a decade emotionally abused me, controlled me and lied to everyone he has ever met. He has a history of aggression, mania and personality disorder. However the social worker decided after never asking me one question on the subject, that I made it all up. There is evidence of his bullying to our sons old child minder, which was ignored. Medical records and therapy reports. I don’t believe social workers are bias towards women. I’m afraid having been taken to court over and over again that they just want to make the easiest choice that causes them the least amount of paperwork, this goes for the judges too, which I have had the pleasure of seeing 7 different ones all about the same matter of residence. I’m criticised for withholding our son from his farther once, because he threatened to kill me. The system is corrupt and lazy. One of the judges fell asleep during my ex husbands questioning, seriously. I was brought up to be good to people and they will be good to you. So wrong being good and nice has left my little boy in danger and there is nothing I can do but watch as he changes in front of me. Justice is how much you can pay!!!!!

      Like

  19. Anonymous · October 9, 2013

    The question that I have is: who is ultimately responsible for all this violence?

    Is it the family courts, which by destroying families, make children vulnerable?
    Is it bloodthirsty lawyers, who turn amicable separations into wars where children get caught in the crossfire?
    Is it the feminists, who promote gender violence and gender hatred to an unprecedented level in history?
    Is it social workers, who look the other way when a mother is violent?
    Is it the politicians, whose legislation does not allow fathers to fulfill their protective roles because men need to work in order to pay maintenance?
    Is it the military, whose war-mongering overseas inevitably comes home to disrupt and terrorize domestic life?
    Is it the parents (or single mother), who has failed to instil morals and good behavior in children?

    Like

  20. Pingback: Support Blogger’s Rights | Children's Rights
  21. Pingback: Karen Woodall: Gender based Family Services – killing children in the UK
  22. Spencer · January 27, 2014

    I found a naked picture of my sons stepdad in the iphone I gave him (to play games / apps when I got a new one). I dont know why but I instantly deleted it. A kind of instinct. I should obviously have kept it. I didnt dare mention it as I knew his mother would prevent me ever seeing him again. So I decided my only hope was to keep a close eye and I started to ring him twice a week after school just to check he was ok. I got a solicitors letter saying my repeated calls were considered harassment. I am a rational man. But I was rendered powerless by every aspect of society. I am genuinely amazed how restrained fathers are as a whole coming up against this.

    My own solicitor told me if I no longer had the picture a court would view me as a vicious ex partner and it would work against me to ever mention it. Can you even imagine the position that puts you in.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s