Rapist given access to son

The court have no say because the 'child' is 17

The threshold of evidence that contact with the father isn't in the child's interests seems really high

Much too high.

I somewhere read about a case where a man was allowed to raise a baby he had wanted the mother to abort. After the kid had already been put up for adoption and spent the first year of life with a lovely couple of adoptive parents, the glorified sperm donor demanded the child be handed to him because he hadn't been asked for permission for the adoption.

After trying to get the mother to abort the pregnancy and then not being in the child's life AT ALL.

It is crazy.

Sorry, when I read it back I was out of order.

What NotANotMan is saying is correct in my experience.
It is also true if there have been child protection issues, but that is a whole other story.

The threshold of evidence that contact with the father isn't in the child's interests seems really high. I know a family in a situation like this and of course it's mums job to manage the emotional fall out from her child's dad insisting on his right to access while not actually giving a shit about the child's wellbeing.

I may not have your background, but it seems to me that this contradicts your understanding of the way courts are asked to decide matters?

Not really, as you say, you don't have my background.

Cafcass and women's aid published some joint research and guidance last year in recognition of the fact that children and women were being harmed by direct/unsupervised contact being recommended.

www.cafcass.gov.uk/2017/07/25/cafcass-womens-aid-collaborate-domestic-abuse-research/

It is time for feminist revolution.

There should be NO possibility at all for it to even be suggested that a rapist have access to his victim's baby.

I am not too fond of this nonsense laws that give males access to children they contributed nothing but sperm to.

Children may have an inherent need to know who their father is, but I don't buy they profit from contact to a random stranger who just happens to be their genetic father.

The presumption that a father is a positive role in a child's life even if they are abusive to the mother is incorrect, in my (and experts') view.

Is there really such a presumption, I wondered to myself ? As Google is a friend, I gave it my best and I have found this below. You might be familiar with the Family Practice Rules. In particular, there is Practice Direction 12J dealing with domestic violence. There Para 7 reads as follows

In proceedings relating to a child arrangements order, the court presumes that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The court must in every case consider carefully whether the statutory presumption applies, having particular regard to any allegation or admission of harm by domestic abuse to the child or parent or any evidence indicating such harm or risk of harm.

I may not have your background, but it seems to me that this contradicts your understanding of the way courts are asked to decide matters ?

@sawdust that's a misrepresentation. I stated that in cases of DV perpetrated by the father there is a presumption that it is in the child's interests to have contact despite it being very detrimental to the mother. My assertion is that it is NOT necessarily in the child's interests for the mother to be further traumatised and abused by being forced to co-parent with the abuser.

I don't think the rights are competing in many cases but the courts haven't yet caught up on current thinking about contact where DV is evidenced and still order contact even when the children are old enough to report what is happening. The presumption that a father is a positive role in a child's life even if they are abusive to the mother is incorrect, in my (and experts') view.

Thread with link to Sammy's petition:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3437221-Sammy-Woodhouse

Yes that's the current law. But you were lamenting the fact that the Court aren't interested with the mother's interests.

The courts will always prioritise the needs of the child. I didn't dodge the question, I answered it already in the post you responded to. The children act makes it clear that the child's needs are paramount.

What do you think contact is? It's not weekly telephone calls. Contact is almost always face to face and unsupervised

Obviously there are different kinds of contact. Some form of contact are your words from above. If there is an abusive father than it is open for the Court to order supervised contact.

But coming back to the example you cite, where a traumatised mother is handing the child over to an abusive father is such where the interests of the mother and child are as one.

But you dodge my comment as to conflict of interests. Where you have a conflict of interests between the mother and the child then where are you ? To adapt your example, you have a traumatised mother forced to hand child to a father where there is no finding of the court that he has been abusive. What do you think the court should do in that situation ?

Some form of contact does not equate to 'handing a child over to an abusive father'

What do you think contact is? It's not weekly telephone calls. Contact is almost always face to face and unsupervised.

my personal feelings aside,

reading the whole thread - i have to say notanotman is factually accurate.

its the law that needs to change but for now what the council did was exactly what they had to do - i think the headlines are misleading - custody wasn't asked for or granted, nor was contact from my understanding. This seems to be more a frenzy about what is perceived as could have happened , than did happen.

God no. I was in care by 11. But my boy (now adult!)!had complex needs too.

Your last sentence did not imply it
It came across as sneering
And google is your friend on why she asked for help with her son who has complex needs

Gosh no I think she's an amazing advocate.

Just wonder why her son is in care - I think the council have been very blinkered but clearly they followed the letter of the law in notifying his father albeit a bonkers decision. But I guess the law is the law and yes it needs changing.

Model,citizen copper?
You being fucking serious or just a random fuckwit who forget how to use their brain

The courts definitely haven't caught up with the news that having their mother traumatised by being forced to hand their child over to an abusive father isn't actually in the child's interests.

Some form of contact does not equate to 'handing a child over to an abusive father'.

Is this child in LA care?

If so why? The council it appears has tried to follow the letter of the law in notifying all "concerned "parties when a child goes into care albeit a bonkers decision given he is in prison .

Wonder why he is in care and not with such a model citizen as his mum?

Well, the children act prioritises the child's interests above all. The courts definitely haven't caught up with the news that having their mother traumatised by being forced to hand their child over to an abusive father isn't actually in the child's interests. Cafcass have developed some guidance on it but they are a bit toothless too and will often recommend the easiest option (the one a risk averse judge is most likely to agree, which is usually some kind of contact with the father, as judges are very wary of shutting off contact entirely)

The courts sadly aren't very interested in what is in the Mother's interests

To avoid a conflict of interests, I guess ?

Under the circumstances in this case, if I was the social worker, I would be strongly advocating not to contact the father as not being in the child's interests. (The courts sadly aren't very interested in what is in the Mother's interests) but I would have to be directed by the court and guided by our solicitor. The social worker has little power in a situation like this.

Its in the guidelines that you cannot be abusive so possibly taking some time to try and sound reasonable would be a good idea repeal