Rapist given access to son

As in here for example link

Notaman
Why are the MOJ this morning saying the authorities/ council could have gone to court about this ?

No, at nothingonthetellyagain

not

Im assuming that the 'for fucks sake' comment isnt directed to me

But the local authorities didn’t approach the court A social worker approached the rapist father in prison and asked him if he wanted parental rights Why did the local authorities not approach the court before the sw approach the rapist father

The case was already in proceedings. The decision to contact the father would have been taken as part of the proceedings and the social worker would have been acting on the advice of their solicitor.

And the council didn't bother with this.

I expect they had reasons that silly women won't be able to comprehend

We get so "emotional" about this sort of thing.

Family law is applied in ways which oppress women and children all the time And it's a travesty. Abusive fathers are given contact over and over even when they continue to abuse the children contact is not stopped.

But the law is the law. Many posters on this thread clearly (and reasonably) have no idea why this scenario arose and whose responsibility it was.

But the local authorities didn’t approach the court
A social worker approached the rapist father in prison and asked him if he wanted parental rights
Why did the local authorities not approach the court before the sw approach the rapist father

And the council didn't bother with this.

I expect they had reasons that silly women won't be able to comprehend.

We get so "emotional" about this sort of thing.

For fuck sake
I work in this area. The law is complex and as you rightly point out most people won't know it. Why would they if they don't work in social work or family law?

What do you want me to say? The law is wrong? Yes! The law should be ignored? Obviously not!

I am not talking about this particular case

I assumed that whoever posted it (you?) also wasnt talking about this particular case as it referred to 'might'

If id known who posted i could have checked the context

But out of context, the law...which i know is the law...doesnt make sense

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately

No, the council had the right to apply to the court for the court to decide whether to involve the father or not

Several of us have pointed this out. I mentioned the solicitor on the JV programme (and the MJ themselves) made this point

It's an application to be made to the court. Local authorities don't make this decision themselves

Yes it's not as simple as you think you silly woman.

he rapist father might have had a lovely mother or sibling who could care for the child rather than him going to strangers. It's not simple

I missed who posted this

But the lovely mother is a bloody stranger

I posted this. The mother is a member of the child's family of origin. This is the law. Take it up with the MoJ please! But the law is the law

Yes vicky

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately.

Several of us have pointed this out. I mentioned the solicitor on the JV programme (and the MJ themselves) made this point.

Yes some people are still suggesting that this is not the case.

It IS*.

The council had the ability within law to exclude the father
Rotherham council this is who have failed to protect children
What have they learned from the past
Nothing

Fucking hell.

& this

"the brain injury from her "accident" makes her a danger to the baby"

There was a study that showed that DV victims had brain injuries at a similar rate to boxers or something. And this needed to be recognised. As these injuries can affect behaviour and make people seem a bit off, unreliable, and of course this is then used to "show" that the woman is not a reliable witness / shoudl,n't have the kids etc.

The study said that victims of DV in this situaiton should have brain scans to look for damage IIRC.

It's like a double whammy isn't it. Awful.

he rapist father might have had a lovely mother or sibling who could care for the child rather than him going to strangers. It's not simple

I missed who posted this

But the lovely mother is a bloody stranger...

Lived not loved.

Considering

A) the child loved with his father and grandparents for a while and experienced domestic violence in that family, possibly why he is having issues now

And

B) his fathers brother(s) and I think uncle were also charged in the same court case and were deeply involved in the CSE ring it is clear that even if that might be the case for some children it clearly wasn't here.

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately.

This happens.

I know somebody who was viciously attacked, beaten and raped. She was kept in a coma to recover, during this time it was discovered she was pregnant.

Her husband (bastard) sat beside her bed the whole time, saying the right things to the right people.

When she was strong enough, she tried to press charges. No one believed her.

When baby was born she tried to keep him away but he took her to court and said the brain injury from her "accident" makes her a danger to the baby.

Long story short, he has full custody.

She gets to see child six times a year supervised.

Disgusting.

""The other issue is that if a child goes into care the law requires local authorities to explore family members rather than long term foster care or adoption. The rapist father might have had a lovely mother or sibling who could care for the child rather than him going to strangers. It's not simple.""

This reads to me that

Women on here don't know the law (probably true for many)
That the rapist may have lovely family (yes sure)
Who the child could live with NONONO
And the fact that there may be a lovely mum that we are overlooking as a great person to care for the child (???) means that we are not thinking into the situaiton.

OR have I totally misread your post.

Yes!
I'm challenging the narrative that the social workers are the ones responsible, that they 'gave' the rapist contact, that they 'failed' to make the application etc
Social workers have to work within the law. It's the courts who are responsible for this situation.

Someone on another thread has posted that there are other cases in the area where the rapists families have the children and the mums have to see them at the access centre.

Yes 100% WTF.

And there is a additional issue > past further harm to the victim of forcing them into a relationship with the rapists family >> that blood is often thicker than water. And where that may lead.

I am total WTF and telling women "It's not so simple" when their gut reaction is this is NOT right is what enables so much shit to continue.

IF society listened more to women then things woudl be a lot better lets be honest here.