Rapist given access to son

It's not as simple as you think
I'm not being argumentative or misogynistic by saying that. It's fact. I know the law.

Re: B-S is case law. You are welcome to research it if you wish. The relevant section of the link is reproduced here

"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 post is utter total WTF.

And your posts there ^ is not stating the law it is giving an "alternative perspective" and saying yes see here women, it's not as simple as you think.

Yes total massive WTF all over the place and if you can't see why that say loads TBH.

"the reporting in the Times is incorrect. This is the correct information from the Transparancy Project a group of family lawyers, journalists and academics striving to ensure accurate reporting and greater understanding of the Family Courts "

TLDR: This woman is exxagerating / lying about what has been going on for her own agenda

This thread is unbelievable.

Even after the gross failings that we have seen in this area across the "authorities" that include SS some still say, yes they know best, dont' question, this woman is telling the wrong story, I don't think it's like that etc etc etc

Will people never learn?

The fuck what? That's the law childprotectionresource.online/tag/re-b-s/

I am flabbergasted by that comment.

Please also remember that local authorities are represented by solicitors in care proceedings. The solicitor tells the social worker what orders can be applied for in those specific circumstances. The local authority's solicitor should have made sure that the social worker knew that an exemption could be applied for - we have no idea whether the social worker even knew this.

"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"

The fuck????

My post was referring to the link provided by user1471.

Well it’s comforting 🙄 to see that the judiciary are consistent in their treatment and consideration for victims of sexual assault throughout the western world.

Fuckers. Ugh.

This issue was just covered on Jeremy Vine and Sammy Woodhouse herself was speaking to JV about it. Her son is now 17 and a half and she discussed going public with him before doing it.

The MoJ were contacted as part of the programme and clarified that the council could have asked permission not to go through the process of contacting the rapist to ask if he wanted parental rights; however, Rotherham clearly decided not to bother.

They also had a former council solicitor on who supported the notion that the council solicitors (and she mentioned we should bear in mind that Rotherham are still under investigation for their child protection failings) should have been all over this and ensured that the appropriate court ruling was applied for and that therefore the rapist was not contacted.

I will add that Sammy said she was in contact with other women in other parts of the country in a similar position and the same thing has happened to them...

Thanks user1471... for that link. Bookmarking the site for future reference.

If you read the full article the mother has identified herself

Does that link refer to a different newspaper article?

The link states that the mother is anonymous in the article, whereas clearly she is not in The Times article. There is a big picture of her and repeated references to her name.

the reporting in the Times is incorrect. This is the correct information from the Transparancy Project a group of family lawyers, journalists and academics striving to ensure accurate reporting and greater understanding of the Family Courts www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

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.

If there is a known parent, including that parent being convicted of rape against the mother of the child when she was a minor, a court agreement has to be pro-actively sought to prevent that parent having access? And / or agreeing to a passport? Other aspects of parental responsibility?

That is the law as it stands. A parent I worked with once applied to have the father not made party to proceedings and it had to go to the high court for a decision. It's never done lightly.

Rotherham council lawyers/SWs would have known that they could apply to the courts to not notify the father about the proceedings.

It was Sammy Woodhouse who was pivotal in exposing the sexual exploitation in Rotherham and the failings of the LA and SYP in the first place. It was she who gave the interview to the Times journalist Andrew Norfolk which triggered the eventual independent investigation.

How interesting that instead of acting in the clear interests of her son, the council pursued a course which could have meant she ended up with her rapist back in her life again.

Is there anything a man can do to be denied access to his kids. The rights of the father to have access always seems to rank far higher than the wellbeing of the children.

It should be noted that what the courts actually do is prioritise the child. It's not about the father's rights. We have a wealth of evidence that children who are not given the opportunity to fully know and understand their backgrounds (even when their backgrounds are not good) are more likely to have identity issues in the future.

Things become very tricky with egregious cases because of this.

Ministry of Justice contact form link

contact-moj.dsd.io

This happens all the time, everywhere. Rapists and violent abusers are given parental rights to the children they 'fathered' with their victims. Not just in the case of CSE, but also within marriage and relationships. What Sammy is doing will hopefully help all women in these situations to protect their children from their abusers.

The child will be 18 now, he can make his own mind up surely?

I understood it different to your opening post Op.
The rapist didnt ask for access therefore the council didn't agree it with him. He didn't want anything to do with his child. I understood the council had approached him as the child was going into care due to complex behavioural needs and although the man is a convicted rapist he is still the father of the child and his opinion was sought.

Whatever the finer details are though it is absolutely outrageous that this woman is in this situation. I guess I can understand Rotherham are trying to cover themselves if the rapist launches a legal challenge to his rights but my god has nobody got the balls to stand up for what is right. That woman has been through hell. A load of social worker staff and their manager would have had a planning meeting and not even taken into account the ordeal or the sentencing. The guy would be on the Protocol system as A Risk to Children!
Between this and the throng case in Ireland women's rights are just overlooked and trampled over and over again.
Things seem to be worse than when I was a teenager 40 years ago