Talk

Advanced search

Childrens rights v the rights of the (criminal) father. Disgusted..yes, Horrified..absolutely, surprised..Sadly, no.

(79 Posts)
littlemisssarcastic Mon 22-Aug-11 10:47:22

Unless this article is completely fabricated? hmm

This is just one example imo of how children are not always protected in our society, and that sometimes, the 'human rights' of abusive parents do come before the rights of the children.

Here

Mitmoo Mon 22-Aug-11 10:51:06

I hope the mothers ignore every contact order put in front of them. There is no way I would allow my child to go with a convicted paedophile including a child rapist just because they were the father.

Madness in our family courts again.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 22-Aug-11 10:54:00

Paedophiles have also won the right to have UNSUPERVISED access to their children as it would breach their human rights to keep them apart, judges said.

GypsyMoth Mon 22-Aug-11 11:11:48

They have the right maybe......BUT if it went to family court for a court order then I doubt a judge would rule unsupervised to happen if cafcass have done welfare reports.

MoominsAreScary Mon 22-Aug-11 11:12:26

Well they would have to lock me up for breeching the court order as there is no way I'd give them access to my child

Gonzo33 Mon 22-Aug-11 11:30:39

I'm with you on this one - no way would my exh being having any kind of access with my ds if he was a convicted Paedophile, or child rapist. This makes my stomach churn

Lilymaid Mon 22-Aug-11 11:42:02

You might like to read this article about the judgment as well as the Daily Mail.

Cocoflower Thu 25-Aug-11 02:01:33

I hope this article is incorrect, I really do.

If not the family law is getting beyond the joke it even is now in the UK.

How about children's rights for once?

Each day I am growing a tiny bit more angry at the UK, its just turning into a horrible place....

philosowatzit Thu 25-Aug-11 02:11:42

OH MY GOD! This is disgusting, I'm trying to prevent my DC's having contact with a father who abused my DD, so looks like it's prison for me then...... but I guess that would be ok, breaking up the family, as long as pedo dad has all his rights in tact. SICK SICK SICK

Cocoflower Thu 25-Aug-11 02:18:10

The courts dont give a shit do they?

They think its all beneath them in their ivory towers.

Well anyone who gives sympathy and rights too Child abusers over innocent children is atcually deeply stupid, immoral and in the wrong job.Just think they get paid all this money to wreck children's lifes.

Family law is getting worse all the time.

I hope you get a good outcome phil I feel awful for you and your dd

ZonkedOut Thu 25-Aug-11 06:47:28

I saw the thread title and just knew it would have a DM link in it...

Scaevola Thu 25-Aug-11 06:58:12

I hope that this - like the furore earlier this year about blanket time on the sex offenders register - is simply about the blanket nature of these rules.

It seems to be saying only that an automatic ban in every case would be a breach of human rights. Not that a considered, individual ban would be a breach.

Scaevola Thu 25-Aug-11 07:04:47

Here is the earlier thread about ending the automaticity of indefinite placement on SOR.

mummytotwoboys Thu 25-Aug-11 09:09:17

Sorry but they would have to lock me up because there is no way my 3DCs would have any form of contact with this sort of person and if they did lock me up, my DM would have them and refuse to let him see them too. What is the world coming to . . . sad

SDTGisAnEvilGenius Thu 25-Aug-11 10:36:37

Philosowatzit - I can utterly understand why you would be freaked out by this article - but I don't think that this judgement will have any effect in your situation.

The judgement says that the rights of the father to a family life have to be considered before their access to their children is removed or restricted - but that doesn't mean that all fathers found guilty of these sorts of offenses will get access to their children.

Whilst what the four men in the article did is disgusting, immoral and utterly unacceptable, what your ex did is far worse, and I find it almost impossible to believe that any judge would give someone who had been convicted of abusing his child/children unsupervised access to those children - and if one did, you would have an almost unassailable case for an appeal, so please don't let this worry you.

I would honestly expect a judge in your case to say something along the lines of, 'I have considered X's right to a family life, and do not consider that this right outweighs the rights of his child to safety and freedom from the risk of abuse and from having to see their abuser again - so I am not going to order access for this father to his child.'

littlemisssarcastic Thu 25-Aug-11 11:07:23

I thought fathers didn't have rights, only responsibilities, same as mothers.

I wish society would concentrate more on the rights of the children when it comes to situations such as these.

I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about some NRP's being more concerned with their rights than their responsibilities. These men who viewed child pornography online should have thought about the impact their disgusting habit had on their right to a family life before they viewed the child pornography.

SDTGisAnEvilGenius Thu 25-Aug-11 11:46:58

I couldn't agree more, littlemiss.

babybarrister Thu 25-Aug-11 12:40:50

sorry but you all really need to read the case properly before criticising the judges

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1772.html&query=2011+and+EWCA+and+Crim+and+1772&method=boolean

Judges do not live in ivory towers, they have children, no doubt know paedophiles [a couple of judges have been arrested for online porn in the past] and frankly on a daily basis have to hear the sort of detail on disgusting paedophilia that the rest of us are thankfully spared from

the fact is that many paedophiles do not abuse their own family and would never do so [no, that does not make them "great" people to have around obviously]

further, many paedophiles are only interested in one gender

the Children's Act 1989 does not give any rights to either parent - it is about the welfare of the child

if a father has been convicted of paedophilia towards a boy who is not his family member or has gone onto lots of gay paedophile websites, then if he has a daughter, it is very unlikely that she is at risk from him - the risk will be for a court to weigh up. That is entirely different from the awful case above where a father has abused his own daughter - of course there would not be contact if the abuse is substantiated

the rights are of the DD to have a relationship with her "D"F - obviously if he is dangerous to HER [rather than being disgusting and depraved in general...], there will of course be no contact. Many parents may be depraved and disgusting in a variety of ways but it does not always follow that they present a risk to a particular child

What the Court of Appeal have said essentially is that there should be no blanket rule on sentencing in the the criminal courts which would prevent contact with children in all cases. It does not follow that in an individual case that there would be contact

Funnily enough family judges would not be too keen for convicted paedophiles to have contact with children ....

You can all sleep at night - this is not a licence for paedophiles to go on the rampage

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thu 25-Aug-11 12:54:52

what babybarrister said...

Cocoflower Thu 25-Aug-11 14:12:04

Oh baby barrister

I can only assume you have never been on the wrong end of trying to protect your child from a monster.

Do you have any idea the sheer hell parents go through knowing the court has failed to protect them and their children? No you haven't a clue.

The message as, as you have written yourself is in spite of the red lights showing this persons character ("Many parents may be depraved and disgusting in a variety of ways but it does not always follow that they present a risk to a particular child"); lets keep exposing and risking them to danger- unless 100% evidence in the future shows he has indeed hurt his child.

Why take that, frankly, sick risk?

Oh you say "You can all sleep at night - this is not a licence for paedophiles to go on the rampage" inspite of clearly writing the judge will likely grant access to the paedophle if the child happens to be the 'wrong' gender!

The courts are just a joke and my respect for them is zero

LittleWhiteWolf Thu 25-Aug-11 14:17:57

Its a shame more people aren't reading around the DM article instead of getting hysterical--which is IMO what the DM seem to write for.

Cocoflower Thu 25-Aug-11 14:20:17

Bollocks- we are real people how been through these problems YEARS ago and know the reality. We don't need a newspaper to tell us how it is- we have actually lived through it

Cocoflower Thu 25-Aug-11 14:21:12

angry

littlemisssarcastic Thu 25-Aug-11 16:57:51

the Children's Act 1989 does not give any rights to either parent - it is about the welfare of the child

Imo, whilst this may be what the childrens act was intended to be about, it is not the reality, and that is an overall opinion, not specifically wrt paedophilia. I did not form my opinion from any newspaper article, but rather from my own and other RL experiences.

On saying that, AFAIC, a paedophile should never be given unsupervised access to any child, regardless of the sex of the child who has been abused.

babybarrister Do you have links to your statement that the fact is that many paedophiles do not abuse their own family and would never do so [no, that does not make them "great" people to have around obviously]

AFAIK, a child is more likely to be abused by a member of their own family or a close friend of the family than by a random stranger, so I am interested to see where you get your information from.

Oh and babybarrister, some judges do live in ivory towers are out of touch with reality, but it's nice to see that you have so much faith in judges as a whole. Perhaps you would like to defend this judge too babybarrister??

(Not a DM link this time Littlewhitewolf you'll be pleased to hear!)

solidgoldbrass Thu 25-Aug-11 17:04:33

Look, the Daily Mail article is just another 'Human rights are AWFUL, you don't really want to have them!' squawk. The DM are just as happy to print articles criticizing women who won't let their XPs see the children on the grounds of XPs being abusive.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now