Each case is dealt with individually so theres no one size fits all. The aim is to keep children with their families wherever possible and interventions will take place to promote the safety of children living with their parents, but if a child is deemed to be at risk of harm they will be removed from the parents care. Depending on the offences taken place, not all RSOs may be deemed as a risk to children, but if the offences have involved children then it is probable they will be deemed as a risk to children. If someone is a risk to children, they shouldnt be living with them. The partner will have to make the choice of continuing with the relationship and risk losing their children, or to leave the relationship and continue parenting their children. So even if they are his own children, if he is a risk to children, he isnt allowed to reside with them.
Even taking the RSO status out of the equation, there is heaps of research on the impact of DV on children. As well as having a significant impact on their emotional wellbeing, there is the risk of a child being physically hurt if they try to intervene or get caught in the crossfire. If DV is raised as an issue, theres support available to both the perpetrator and victim to try and overcome this, so does not necessarily mean a child would be removed straight away. But if it is longstanding then that could be an outcome. I think Ive read that KN had a restraining order at some point, which to me would suggest the DV was significant and ongoing. It would suggest that she and therefore her children were at risk of harm from DN, so again he shouldnt be living with them. It could be that since the restraining order was put in place, DN demonstrated he had made such changes that he was no longer a risk of perpetrating DV, so they could return to living as a family - who knows!
DV = domestic violence
