This was provided to me recently, by way of a quick summary of a case.
There is nothing unusual about the way a case of this type is spoken about as this is how we routinely talk about cases.
All the problems are attributed to Mum, and as an after thought, DV in the home is mentioned.
When I hear this, I have a physical reaction internally
Our language matters.
The way we talk about cases matters
It matters
"THE WAY WE DESCRIBE SOMETHING DEFINES HOW WE APPROACH IT"
Who do you think the focus will be on in the risk assessment and safety planning process in this case
Of course, it will be mum - with her mental health problems, her drug and alcohol use and her neglect of the children and - gosh - now she is pregnant again....
(as if the day to day care of children is 100% the responsibility of mums? Lol)
‘The DV (aka dad’s violence toward mum) included almost as an after thought. In this case dad was identified as the perpetrator
We will know we are getting there when cases are described by first talking about the violence and naming the person being violent - not mutualising the violence or disappearing this person using violence. Saying ‘there was violence’ suggests it appeared out of thin air, as opposed to an act perpetrated by a person to another person, a choice that person made.
Could we imagine writing about or talking about cases like this;
“Dad has been hitting and hurting mum, verbally abusing her, controlling the money and her friendships for at least 5 years that we know about.
During this time professionals, family and friends have interpreted the way mum responds to dads violence and control as mum having mental health problems. They see that her using drugs and alcohol is the root of the problems for the children and the family rather than seeing this as a way of coping with the fear and stress.
The drug and alcohol use, which exasperates mum’s low mood and stress responses, has lead people to view mum as having neglected the kids.
Dad regularly blames mum for the problems in the family and gets sympathy from other professionals this way.
We are worried about neglect for the children, emotional harm caused by dads violence and control.
We are focusing our work on dad and his behaviours, as we view them as the catalyst for the other worries.
Whilst dad’s violence continues we believe there will be little sustainable change in the other areas of worry and the safety of mum and the kids. We believe that the safer we make it for mum, the safer it will be for the children, so this is the focus of our case work”
When we talk about cases this way we show we are working to understand the complexities of domestic abuse, and we approach our work with the family through this lens. We have an understanding about how people who use violence might think or act and the impact this has on the people who live with them. We can hold multiple possibilities more easily.
There is so much cultural change required before we change the way we approach domestic abuse cases. Policy, procedure, training even legislation are all great but aren’t worth jam without cultural change through an ongoing learning process. What are the ways you challenge the traditional views of domestic abuse?
Comentarios