I once came across a pamphlet while I was being harrassed by Social Services. It was a pamphlet that had warning signs and methods of abuse - namely domestic. I think I fell over laughing while reading this thing - because EVERY method and warning sign on the pamphlet was something I had experienced at the hands of a Social Worker. Every single one. Let me give you the list from the pamphlet:

Emotional abuse- Putting her down or making her feel bad about herself, calling her names
Economic abuse - Trying to keep her from securing or keeping a job; Making her ask for money
Using children - Making her feel guilty about the children, using the children to give her messages, using visitation as a way to harass her
Threats - Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her physically and emotionally - take the children, commit suicide
Using superior privilege - Treating her like a servant, making all the "big" decisions, acts like master of the castle
Intimidation - Putting her in fear by using looks, actions, gestures, loud voice, destroying her property
Isolation - Controlling what she does, who she sees and talks to and where she goes

Now why call them 'terrorists'? I am not using the term to be excessive, sensational or extreme. I mean it literally. And I intend to prove it to you. Most of us in today's times have some idea of what a terrorist is and what they do. Let me take you further into the educational loop. These excerpts are from the Journal of The Singapore Armed Forces. The full article is here: The Motivations and Methods of the Terrorist
by MAJ (NS)(DR) Aaron Chia Eng Seng

Definition
"One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

The word "terrorist" comes from the Latin root word terrere meaning "to cause to tremble." The designation of Terrorism is a subjective argument about the legitimacy of certain violent acts as much as it is a descriptive statement about them. "If the world is perceived to be peaceful, violent acts appear as terrorism. If the world is at war, violent acts may be regarded as legitimate. They may be seen as pre-emptive strikes, as defensive tactics in the ongoing battle."3 For example, the US has been accused of terrorism in the atrocities committed during the Vietnam War and there is some basis for considering the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist acts.4 Thus, to the attackers, whoever stands by a just cause cannot be called a terrorist.5 On the other hand, the diverse origins and semantic justifications of terrorist acts are irrelevant to the victims.6

Causes and Motivations
The underlying causes and motivations of terrorism can be studied at three levels: individual, national or group and international.
Individual:
There are those who join to find their identities by becoming part of the group. They commit acts to feel accepted. Because of the need to belong to the group, they seldom resign or compromise their involvement.
It takes a community of support and in many cases, a large organizational network for an act of terrorism to succeed.15 It also requires an enormous amount of moral presumption for the perpetrators of these acts to justify the brutal attack on another life, especially the life of someone one scarcely knows and against whom one bears no personal enmity. It requires social acknowledgement, and the stamp of approval from a legitimising ideology or authority one respects. Because of the moral, ideological and organisational support necessary for such acts, most of them come as collective decisions.

National Or Group Level:
At the national or group level, specific conditions of the state and of the social system may provoke people to terrorism....Terrorism often becomes a useful tool in the tolerant liberal states, which are vulnerable to it. Severe repression, or under-reaction, implying incompetence on behalf of the reacting government may both attract and encourage further terrorism.18 The evolution of the modern political terrorism is historically parallel to the development of the liberal state.19 Terrorism evolved at the same rate as liberal ideas were expanding. First there is anarchist terrorism that is associated with the concept of the "propaganda of the deed". This advocates the propagation of the anarchist message among the masses by terrifying governments and people, so as to bring about a revolutionary atmosphere of socio-political insecurity.20 Among the ideologies of revolution, Maoism provides a basis for a great deal of justification for terrorism.21 Maoism has had a great influence on Western New-Leftists as well as modern anarchist terrorism and, especially, on terrorists of the Third World.22 Trotsky once said: "Terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations."23
The initial motivations for groups to resort to terrorism may be simple. However, later rationalisation may blur their motives.

Strategy, Tactics and Weapons:
The strategy for terrorists encompasses the following:36 First, the act must be horrifying, striking at innocent lives that have nothing to do with the cause the terrorists are espousing; second, it provokes uncertainty and is directed against the society as a whole and does not distinguish civilians and military targets; third, it depends and uses the mass media to communicate and publicise its acts and motives. The use of violence is obligatory in order to induce fear and chaos and it is aimed at the people and the institutions of the established order.37 Violence provides the glue that binds terrorists together into a unity of purpose even for those who are violently opposed to one another. They also aim to make themselves into heroes and so persuade opponents and neutrals that the terrorists' cause is righteous and their actions are justified.38 Their strategy is to make the other party appear in the wrong or be guilty of brutality. In religiously motivated terrorism, "Satanization" has been used to de-legitimise an opponent.39


I hope this gives you some insight for now into exactly why by definition CPS as a whole, and social workers as individuals are abusers and terrorists - you just can't ignore basic definitions and fact.