Rapist given access to son

Exactly this katara the MN relationships board is full of fathers using the courts to continue to abuse mothers and this is disregarded because the focus is the child.

I want to know how many women have had to deal with this.

I think it is great that sammy has come forward.

I think it is great that she is so high profile.

I imagine that her son is nearly 18 is a factor.
I mean before she probably had to be quiet because it could have put her and her relationship with her children at risk.

I imagine any other women who come forward will be in trouble because of family court secrecy - is that right?

Not read the whole thread, but the point about this happening up and down the country is true. Parental responsibility gives abusers a green light to continue to harass the mother and re-traumatise her, supported by the courts in the ‘best interests of the child’.

The law as a whole needs overhauling. I applaud the victim for speaking out and it is a chink of light in this sad story that her rapist did not take up social services offer and that this flaw in the law is coming to light.

Lisa Muggeride has a video about the law and the responsibility it bears for children, and how in centring the child it often causes vast harm to Mothers

Story on World At One just now with Sammy Woodhouse being impressive and a judge being complacent. Starts at about 30 minutes 12 seconds in:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001b8x

As the family courts are private, we don't know whether this was asked for and denied or not. But we do! Hussein did not ask and when offered turned down the chance to establish his parental rights.

Rotherham Council have said, today to BBC reporters, that they were just following the law but have, so far, not acknowledged that they could have made a different decision.

The MoJ, also today to BBC reporters, have NOT confirmed tha there is a law that means all parents, even violent raping ones, MUST be contacted, but have confirmed that Rotherham Council could have asked for this to be set aside.

So someone somewhere made the decision not to use an apparently common place mechanism to ask a judge for permission to not contact Hussein - despite knowing all of the details, including the fact that child wanted no contact and has even given evidence against his father's family members!

i just really resent being charged with being patronising and misogynistic when I'm trying to give more context to the situation

I cant blame you at all, and the context is incredibly important

I think a lot of people realise that its the law...and why would the law be set up to clarify an issue that shouldn't bloomin' arise in the first place...its just such a stupid situation

So this can be used as an extra threat

If you report me
Everyone will know I am father and I will have rights
You will never get away
I can have access to the kid and if it's a girl well that's excellent
The law will be on my side

That would be very effective

Yes, I suppose so. It's horrendous

So the best thing for these girls to do would have been not report the rapes or go to court

Then the men would not have pR ( if they could get away at that point)

Letter from today's Times, referring to yesterday's article (ie the link in the OP)

^
‘RIGHTS’ OF OFFENDERS
Sir, Your reportt_ “Jailed rapist given chance to see his victim’s child” (Nov 27) vividly illustrates the perverse contemporary fashions and ideologies underpinning the notion that perpetrators are “victims” and hence deserve equal status to those whom they abuse. Such notions are not uncommon among a range of professionals charged with the care and protection of abused victims. Politicians have created the legal and social frameworks in which such repugnant theories thrive and to which professionals are required to adhere.
Robin SeQueira
Former director of social services, Dorset County Council^

There is more in The Times today - main front page story:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rotherham-council-invited-paedophile-to-see-his-victim-s-child-jntcgdv3t?shareToken=935425179d176ab96d81ea7eccd70195

Leading article

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-sammy-woodhouse-and-the-rotherham-care-scandal-bdt6wtvss?shareToken=40468ce6f6ea1fac535ebb5baabb221e

There's also a letter which I can't link to - I'll put it in a separate post.

Sorry Rufus I just really resent being charged with being patronising and misogynistic when I'm trying to give more context to the situation. Let's not forget this journo was the one who 'exposed' the 'Muslim foster carers' story which turned out to be a load of racist bullshit

He's not on the birth certificate so is he legally the father?

That's irrelevant. If the mother names him as the father he is considered as if he has PR

Oh god just reread my post

How rude am i?

You wanna fucks sake not you bloody well fucks sake

Sorry

Crossed

Oh crooked post

Does the MOJ give guidelines to the law ?

The general view of family lawyers (rarely fans of councils) is that in this instance the council social workers have not got it wrong.

"Practice Direction 12C to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (paragraph 3.1 to be precise – read it here), which makes it mandatory for a local authority applying for care orders (as it appears this local authority was) to formally notify a father of the existence of proceedings – even one who was not married to the mother and has no parental responsibility – and even one who is as dangerous and unpleasant as this one appears to have been. No ‘decision’. No perversity. No appalling insensitivity on the part of a local authority."

It is for Parliament to change the law , and the M of Justice to look at the practice direction; this is where any ire should be laid

Its nice youve stopped for fucks saking not

As your posts are interesting and I dont think anyone is intending to have a go at you, if thats what you feel was happening . Its more frustration

He's not on the birth certificate so is he legally the father?

Miranda - the law does not agree with you, sadly. If the birth father's identity is known, he has presumptive parental responsibility for the purposes of legal proceedings

So parents have rights. Great. But the rapist is NOT a 'parent'!!

Someone on the other thread pointed out that the council weren't so hot on applying the law when they had massive child sex abuse rings operating in their area.

They have a legal duty to protect children or similar, I assume?

Maybe someone can help on this point.