AIBU to feel scared ahead of a Clare's Law disclosure call?

Better women die at the hands of abusers than a man have to answer an awkward question from an immigration officer, eh?

And anyway - a SAR would only inform him of a check having been carried out, not others, snd a Claire’s law check doesn’t show up on standard employment DBS checks or ACRO police certificates.

It's definitely not something that should be done casually, no - and the system rightly shouldn't be abused. Hopefully there are measures in place to safeguard against that.

However, the problem with coercive and controlling behaviour is that it can present in different ways. We have all had times when we look back and know we should have listened to our guts. When there are children involved, the risk needs to be managed.

It's a delicate balancing act and hopefully the police are explaining the process to each requester, so that they understand it before choosing whether or not to proceed.

Maybe. But all the OP knows now is that he's never been convicted of a crime of DV (not ' or otherwise', though. It wouldn't reveal other offences because they'd be none of her business).

All people have done is point out to the OP that she felt she had reason enough to enquire in the first place and to try to make sure she understands that nothing to disclose doesn't mean he's never committed a crime or act of DV. Just that he's never been reported for or convicted of one. And yes, that might be because he's never committed one but it might also be because he hasn't been reported.

As long as she understands that, it's all good.

I wish people wouldn’t use Claire’s Law as a personal dating screening service.

If he ever needs police certificates or a SAR for clearances or immigration purposes, this will absolutely show up on there, and he will find himself having to answer some difficult and imposing questions.

It’s unfair to someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.

Or shock horror, he may just be a decent bloke.
He may have never commited a crime DV or otherwise.

No, of course there isn't an official expectation because the state doesn't interfere in our lives to that degree! (Not yet, anyway 😉)

But it's a reasonable human expectation that, if you feel uncomfortable around someone, they set your spidey senses off a-tingling, you have reasonable enough doubts about someone to suspect they might have a history of DV, then self preservation instincts would dictate that most people would naturally distance themselves from that person.

For many that instinct would be enough to end things, but if for OP it isn’t then she is probably the kind of person who should check.

Totally agree, which brings us right back to the start of the thread where the OP was questioning social services being notified.

Not ending a new relationship because your instincts didn't result in you automatically acting to protect yourself or your children, suggests a degree of vulnerability (which could be a result of many things!) and so that is why SS would need to just check a person's capacity for recognising future risk and further protecting themselves and their children.

As an aside, there are so many threads on MN where posters with no knowledge of the process tell an OP to 'do a Clare's Law check' on someone that I think some people regard it as little more than popping into your local police station and asking them to do a quick check on the PNC.

I think this has created a misunderstanding and people don't realise that what they're actually doing is initiating a legal process which involves both the police and social services and will be seen through to its natural conclusion however brief, long or potentially intrusive or whatever the outcome might be.

If having doubts about someone and requesting police disclosure = must end the relationship (even if there is nothing to disclose) then you may as we’ll get rid of Clare’s law entirely and just have: have doubts about someone = must end relationship.

I agree with the expectation thing - I don't think it would be reasonable for any involved agencies to expect the woman to end the relationship based on their gut feelings alone. It's more about empowering the woman to have the full information - and sometimes, there isn't any information to share.

I guess it's a sliding scale. Some people like the OP will request disclosure based on their gut feelings (in this case about her new partner's OTT clinginess). There is nothing to go on and she has said that she will remain vigilant - although there are unanswered questions about what that will look like.

On the other hand, I've been in safeguarding meetings where the woman was absolutely refusing to listen to any of the professionals involved when they were urging her to get a disclosure, because she was in complete denial. I've heard of men strangling pet rabbits, throwing cats against the wall and locking ex partners in cupboards. One threw a puppy over a stairgate with such force that its leg had to be amputated. In all of these cases, the women were in complete and utter denial. DA is a very complex area for authorities to deal with and it's really sad.

Completely agree! It has the potential to give people a false sense of security.

Don’t be fucking ridiculous. It’s there to prevent domestic abuse in circumstances where someone is worried they might be at risk, which is exactly why OP wanted to use it. The police would rather reassure a hundred people that there is no history than have one person killed because she or he was worried they didn’t have a good enough reason to ask for a check.

It is the police’s job to decide if the threshold for disclosure is met. People with concerns about their partners’ behaviour should not self-select out of seeking relevant information about their past history out of fear that they’re overreacting.

The OP has apologised for that comment already.

I do see what you are saying but there is no official expectation to end the relationship rather than do a check, and it’s there for anyone who has an instinct something is wrong. For many that instinct would be enough to end things, but if for OP it isn’t then she is probably the kind of person who should check.

My concern is that a lack of a record doesn’t mean these instincts were off, I know you said you will still be careful OP but please be really cautious as these gut feelings don’t come from nowhere.

Should say if you make an enquiry on behalf of someone else.

So anyone who holds a different opinion to you is not normal? What a disgusting attitude.

Well, the actual expectation is that, if you have doubts, you will end a relationship.

This Law is there to protect those who are potentially vulnerable and might not be able to do that or might not recognise they should have doubts or for those who are concerned about a close friend/relative partner when they haven't expressed any doubts themselves but others do have them.

No one is supposed to force down their doubts and carry on regardless in a relationship they are concerned about because they haven't done a check.

ETA: if you make a disclosure on behalf of someone else, you will not be told anything more. Not even whether there is a disclosure to be made or not. The disclosure is made to the 'interested party'. Eg the partner or parents (depending on the Law used).

We were theoretically allowed to discuss the Sarah's Law disclosure with the two people who were already aware of it prior to disclosure and who had been made aware that a disclosure was being made. But no one else.

If someone received nothing to disclose and then shared that with the person they'd enquired about, that person would already know there was nothing to disclose.

If a disclosure is made under Sarah's Law, the person is informed that an enquiry has been made and that a disclosure will he made and the nature of that disclosure.

I'd be curious as to whether the same was true of Clare's Law? I'd suspect not due to increased risk of violence.

exactly my experience of my disclosure request, I had to have a pre-meeting to explain very clearly what my concerns were and the direct impact on me. When I was told i must not tell the subject that I had made the request, and that when I got my verbal disclosure (no written allowed) it was stressed I must not ever share the information.
a this telling people you did it is so wrong

OP “I’m getting a Clare’s Law check on my boyfriend as he has given me cause for concern”

PP “Ok but if he gives you cause for concern you maybe shouldn’t carry on seeing him”

OP “It’s fine, I’m going to get all future boyfriends checked too so that means I don’t need to address my concerns about this one as I’ve convinced myself I always request one”

Very odd logic.

I think you were absolutely right to check! What’s the message otherwise…if you have doubts force them down and carry on? No way, expert advice is listen to instincts and use these services if you feel you need them.

That really surprises me, I was told I must not tell anyone

It worries me that people go blindly into a relationship ship, involve the kids etc as usually the people you need to worry about don’t show anything but niceness on the beginning.

I can't speak for Clare's Law because Sarah's Law had already been in existence for a while by the time it came out and so it was possibly only seen as a good thing and the concerns had already been addressed.

But one of the strongest arguments against Sarah's Law at the time was the fact it might encourage some people to overlook their instincts if they enquired and there was 'nothing to disclose'. That it might have encourage people to have more confidence and find more reassurance in a non disclosure than the evidence of their own experience of a person.

Glad to see you are going to maintain vigilance. I hope it works out well for you.

In her defence, OP has said that she wasn't aware of Sarah's Law until today. She can't have applied for a check that she wasn't aware of. Although it's clear that you're saying this with good intentions, I think it's reasonable to say that she applied for the disclosure that she knew about, so in her mind that would be doing what she could to protect her children.

Every day's a school day and she may or may not decide to apply for Sarah's Law now. I just think it's only fair to point out that she applied for what she was aware of - which is actually a lot more than many women with a gut feeling would do (ask me how I know!)