The relationship between children's material circumstances and child abuse and neglect raises a series of questions for policy, practice, and practitioners. Children and families in poverty are significantly more likely to be the subject of state intervention. This article, based on a unique mixed‐methods study of social work interventions and the influence of poverty, highlights a narrative from practitioners that argues that, as many poor families do not harm their children, it is stigmatizing to discuss a link between poverty and child abuse and neglect. The data reveal that poverty has become invisible in practice, in part justified by avoiding stigma but also because of a lack of up‐to‐date research knowledge and investment by some social workers in an “underclass” discourse. We argue, in light of the evidence that poverty is a contributory factor in the risk of harm, that it is vital that social work engages with the evidence and in critical reflection about intervening in the context of poverty. We identify the need for fresh approaches to the harms children and families face in order to support practices that engage confidently with the consequences of poverty and deprivation.

This article explores the evidence on the relationship between poverty, inequality and child abuse and neglect. It argues for the importance of developing further work on the implications of inequality, in particular, as this is a significantly underdeveloped area of study despite compelling evidence of its pertinence to the harms that children and their families experience. Drawing from the findings of a quantitative study that an 'inverse intervention law' appeared to be in operation with systematic unequal implications for children, the conceptual thinking behind a new qualitative study to explore why and how this law operates is explained. The implications for policy and practice are discussed in order to promote further debate about what is often a neglected or invisible aspect of child protection.

In the context of the UK government’s immigration policies, this article argues that the secondary nature of gender equality compared to the UK government’s multiculturalism and assimilation agendas has directly impacted on South Asian women’s experiences of family abuse. By drawing on the experiences of 11 Pakistani Muslim women, this article explores the manner in which immigration rules can equip perpetrators of abuse with a powerful tool of oppression, where women can be faced with threats of deportation, or be left economically destitute when leaving an abusive relationship. This article also elucidates the overlooked experiences of UK-domiciled women of South Asian heritage with husbands on a spousal visa who are also being adversely affected by these policies. By acknowledging the hidden nature of abuse, and the economic dependency that characterises women’s experiences of abuse, it is argued that the UK government must critically evaluate its immigration policies.

South Asian women’s experiences of family abuse are not fully understood by state policy, particularly in relation to women’s ‘choices’ in response to abuse. Leaving an abusive relationship tends to be deemed the most, if not only, appropriate response. By drawing on the experiences of 11 Pakistani Muslim women, this paper argues that these simplistic assumptions overlook the diverse strategies women employ in response to abuse. These strategies range from compliance to overt forms of resistance, and they are complex and, at times, can be counterproductive and self-destructive. However, they challenge notions of passivity, and bring to light agentive behaviour best understood in the context of subordination and oppression that created the conditions of its enactment. What is important is that this paper should not create complacency in policy makers by reframing women as agents perfectly capable of altering the structures and constraints within which they are embedded. This paper proposes that government policy and service provider practice be shaped by an alternative perspective on women’s agency, one that recognises ‘exit’ as laden with difficulties and consequences for abused women, and one that does not insist upon physical acts of resistance to oppression as markers of agentive behaviour.

No abstract