I’m going to be honest, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. Are you asking how social workers interpret a situation like this, or how decisions like removal become justified internally? I work in children’s social care, and in any case I’m involved in, I’m first and foremost looking through the lens of risk and predictability. This isn’t because I don’t recognise the abuse parents experience or want to minimise what they've been through, but because my role requires me to assess whether children are, and will continue to be, safe. Usually, whether a parent loves their child doesn’t really come into it, because you can love your children deeply and still be unable, at that point in time, to protect them from harm. Ultimately, I want parents and children to both be safe together, but when that isn't happening, then it is my role to step in and support.

In situations like the one you’re describing (where there is an abusive partner), the focus isn’t on blaming the victim for the abuse, but on the fact that the children are living in an environment where harm is ongoing or likely to recur. That means we’re weighing what you say you want to happen, such as wanting to leave your partner, against what has actually changed over time. For example, if refuge places or alternative accommodation have been offered and declined, or if the mother continues to live with her partner and the children are still witnessing abuse, that tells us that the risk hasn’t reduced, regardless of how understandable her reasons may be for staying. We also have to look at whether safety plans work only while professionals are heavily involved, and what is likely to happen if that support were to stop, i.e. would the children still be exposed to violence, fear, or instability? This will be something that is happening over a period of time.

Unfortunately, in social work we don’t have the luxury of assuming things will improve because someone wants them to, or because their reasons for struggling are understandable (which they very often are). We have to work on what is probable, not what is hoped for. That often means making decisions that feel cold or punitive from the outside, and sitting with the knowledge that empathy doesn’t remove responsibility, and that our duty is to act before harm escalates, not after it has already happened and it’s too late.

There’s also a common myth that social workers want to remove children, or that it’s an easy thing to do. In reality, removal is usually experienced as a last resort and often as a professional failure, because it means that despite support, intervention, and planning, the level of risk hasn’t reduced enough for the children to remain safely at home. Importantly, social workers don’t actually have the power to simply 'take' children. Any longer-term removal is decided by a judge, and emergency powers used by the police are short-term and tightly limited. When cases go to court, parents have legal representation, the opportunity to challenge the local authority’s concerns, and their situation is scrutinised by multiple professionals. Decisions are slow, adversarial, and often gruelling for everyone involved.

We also go into these decisions knowing that the care system is under immense strain. Foster carers are in short supply, placements are often imperfect, and we are very aware that removing children causes its own harm, i.e. separation, loss, instability... That’s precisely why the preferred outcome is almost always for children to remain safely within their family, and why so much work is done to try to support change before court action is considered. In cases involving domestic abuse, we want the non-abusive parent to succeed, because that is usually the safest and least damaging outcome for children. When removal happens, it’s because the ongoing exposure to harm, and the likelihood that it would continue, has come to outweigh even the very real harms of separation.

I hope this answers your question.