AIBU to feel betrayed after protecting my son’s secret for years?

I’m not sure why you’ve tagged me? What are you replying to?

@Backedoffhackedoffyou can see from the op it was more complicated than that, he’s actively sought these pictures and just because he told him mummy he didn’t know they were underage doesn’t mean it’s true. There are MANY reasons they wouldn’t take it further, probably more hassle than it’s worth given there’s people doing this at scale. You are very quick to defend a potential paedophile. And that’s what he is, potentially. Op wouldn’t be so upset about it if she thought he had accidentally shared a pic of an apparently willing, mature 15 year old. In fact if that were the case the police would likely never even have batted an eyelid!

Well, the family court ruled that the child be returned to his parents' care. They will have had access to all SW reports, police material etc.

I have to admit that my brain went to....Right, so you have now raised the child to the age where your son is has interest in him. Where the child can begin to be instructed on things.

Sorry, but I d have alarm bells.

Are they still on the radar of SW??

Ok, so your son at age 18 may have been technically breaking law if looking at pics of teens under 18 but it wouldn’t have been illegal for him to literally have sex with a 16 or 17 year old. The danger level depends on the age of child in photo but unless they were babies, this doesn’t have much relevance to your issue about your grandchild,

as you were kinship carers I imagine there were some safeguarding concerns about babies parents?

you can apply to court for permission to apply to court for child contact. As you have been babies main carers there is a strong argument to be had that it’s in the child’s best interest to remain part of its life. You could try mediation first to see if your son and gf will agree to any kind of fixed arrangements.

But the conviction rates for possession of CSA images is excellent.

You are so naive.

In reality there are plenty of sex offenders, rapists and paedophiles walking the streets.

We all know that the conviction rate for rapes and sexual assaults for example is pitiful.

They are many reasons why some of these cases unfortunately don't end up in court and with a conviction.

The perpetrators are still guilty as sin...

Yabu. You decided at the time to sweep it under the rug when it suited you and now you're weaponising it to your advantage.

Its not really on.

Got away with what ? If the police find no evidence to support a charge, then there’s nothing to get away with. It’s been said about a hundred times that it’s very easy these days to view images of females on the internet who are much younger than they seem, and who often misrepresent their age. DS was 18 at the time so it’s not hard to see how this could happen. And hopefully the police going through his devices would be enough for him to realise how easily it happens.

Any poster on this thread using the term ‘paedophile’ in the context of the detail OP has given, not only doesn’t know what the term means, but isn’t qualified to decide whether it applies, given that it’s a clearly defined clinically diagnosed mental health term. It isn’t what you do, it’s what you are.

There’s absolutely nothing in what OP has said to suggest that her DS is a paedophile - the most likely explanation for no further action is that there was nothing on any of his devices that suggests anything other than a mistaken belief that the image was of someone older than they actually were. And we also don’t know whether that was an assumption on DS’s part, or a misrepresentation by the person in the image.

What do you mean ‘paedophilic activity’ ? There is no such thing. The term paedophile refers to what you are, not what you do. A paedophile is an adult or older adolescent who experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It’s clinically classified as a mental health disorder, applying to those age sixteen or over and at least five years older than the child, who would be age 13 or under, but realistically often much younger.

So basically posters here using the term not only have no evidence to go on, but are also not clinically qualified to say whether someone is a paedophile or not.

And do you seriously think that if the police had found evidence to support actual paedophilia, they would have taken no further action ?

I don't think you know what a paedophile is.

Or the offence that OPs DS was accused of and what it means.

Right so there is nothing OP can do about that then. So what’s your point about disowning all about?

This

The police. He got no punishment for his first pedophilic activity therefore, could well think he can do it again

What would give him the confidence to do it again?

The police saying NFA

or

you not disowning him?

Which would give him the confidence to do it again, as he got away with it once

Yep. Many people on the thread not understanding that a paedophile doesn’t relate to what you do, it’s what you are.

People get so fucking ridiculous about this. I’ve had people online tell me that my husband is a pedophile because we dated when I was 16 and he was 18, and he was “an adult involved with a minor.” We were a year apart in school and lived (still live) in a US state where the age of consent is 16.

It may be illegal for an 18-year-old to have explicit images of a close-in-age girl under 18, but a p(a)edophile is an adult or an older teenager primarily or exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. It’s a psychiatric diagnosis.

You’re actually wrong here. Images of CSA of is a very easy prosecution- if they are there, that’s your evidence. It’s not like rape, it’s not he said she said.

this is why so many are prosecuted.

There is a world of difference between an 18 year old viewing an image of a minor, unaware that they are underage, and paedophilia. OP says DS claimed he wasn’t aware that they were underage, which suggests an image of someone very much older than would attract an actual paedophile. Which is what posters here are calling him. I would hope that anyone serving on a jury dealing with this kind of thing would know the difference, and would be aware what the word actually means. ‘Eight is too late’ may not be a term that sits well with a lot of people, but it’s accurate.

And while CSA is an awful thing for anyone to go through, it shouldn’t colour the judgement of any such victim sitting on a jury. They are supposed to be impartial and focused on actual evidence.

Not the same thing at all. This didn’t get beyond the police checking his devices. Had their been evidence to support the shouts of ‘paedophile’ so prevalent on the thread, the result wouldn’t have been NFA.

@ThreadGuardDogand some of us have clearly never been a victim of abuse - and the joke that is the justice system in relation to dealing with these animals. A tiny fraction of abusers are prosecuted, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. OP openly said he did it - he shared an inappropriate pic of a minor. I actually hope YOU are never on jury duty 🙄

They do actually get charged with it though to appear before a jury

Same way men that don't get a conviction for rape are often rapists regardless what the jury says.