Paedophile parents barred from their progeny

[TeaGinandFags]

This is a new law proposed by Harriet Harmen and backed by the Government to close a loophole that currently allows paedos access to their own children when barred from contact with any other child.

Under the current set up, a child molester is banned from any contact with children - unless he made them. Ridiculous!

The new proposals will remove any parental rights he has - and it's usually a he - and protect the paedophile's own children in the same way as the child of a stranger.

This is both an FYI as well as a call to keep your MP's nose to the grindstone. While this legislation should go through with the full assent of Parliament, in an election year who knows how easily it could get derailed.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/harriet-harman-lord-chancellor-labour-b2530024.html%23:~:text%3DThe%2520new%2520law%2520will%2520cover,against%2520children%2520in%2520the%2520future.&ved=2ahUKEwj89aPvjMyFAxXjWEEAHY6nDOIQFnoECBIQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3coY2PCUD8TKL1z3EyR92G

(Edited for crimes against spelling.)

Whilst this is a step in the right direction, I think you will still get women who decide to have children with these people and who defend them and their right to access the child. (e.g the Constance Marten case. I know the partner was convicted of rape and abduction, instead of CSA, but still).

For that reason, is it possible for father's name to be checked on the sex offender register during the birth registration process or midwife booking in appointment? I don't know how they would Police it otherwise...

Thread with links to BBC article and to sign a petition.

I would like it to go further, its a start, but I feel limiting it those found guilty of raping a child doesn’t go far enough. I’d much rather it be for any parent who commits any sexual offenses against children.

Agree with @Simonjt , and imo individuals with any convictions related to child pornography should also be barred.

I fully support this law as pedophiles, male or female, should be kept away from all children and barred from adoption/fertility/surrogacy ec.

While I agree that anyone such as these shouldn't ever have access or visitation with any children, including their own, I'm not sure I agree with stripping them of their parental rights. Surely this would then absolve them of any obligation to pay maintenance for their children since they have no parental responsibility anymore?

If so, it feels like a way to punish women, potentially as a single parent of any number of kids, for their ex partner's crimes. She now has to raise the child(ren) with no financial assistance.

A better solution, in my opinion, would be an automatic lifetime "no access" court order once convicted.

No it doesn't. A father doesn't have to have parental responsibility to be required to pay maintenance. The two aren't linked.

Paedos shouldn't be allowed near a child for the rest of their life once convicted. I don't care how much that affects their freedom or even if it means they're locked up forever. You simply cannot be rehabilitated from a crime like that - if they're attracted to children surely that doesn't go away?

I understand you have to pay maintenance without initially having parental responsibility, for example not being on the birth certificate, but is that the same if you are actively stripped of your parental responsibility? Such as when you place a child for adoption and relinquish your parental responsibility that way?

As I understand it adoption is different as the adoptive parents take over all rights and responsibilities, as a legal procedure. In the case of this suggestion, just the rights would be removed, not the responsibilities. A parent not on the birth certificate would have to go to court to be added on to the birth certificate if the mother didn't add them when the birth was registered and didn't agree to add them at a later date, paying maintenance by itself doesn't confer parental rights.

Just thinking through some of the potential situations here and trying to look at the different impacts it would have - is it fair to the children to remove a parent from their lives in that way?

E.g. say there's a man with three primary school age kids. He is convicted of viewing child abuse images. Not a victimless crime, obviously, but there's no suggestion he has harmed or would ever harm his own children. Is it fair to those three children to fully remove their father from their lives, to ban him from ever contacting them? Ignoring his side of things, the children haven't done anything wrong, and the state has stepped in and banned their father from seeing them. When he wasn't a direct risk to them. That's quite a major step.

And if their mother quite reasonably struggles to be a single parent to three children, is the state meant to step in again and do what - pay maintenance to her, take the children into care?

Why do this only for paedophiles, what if their father was a convicted murderer, or a drug dealer?

A peadophile is a risk to all children, what level of harm are you wanting children to suffer before they are protected from a peadophile?

Looking at the actual proposal it is only in relation to people convicted of raping a child under 13 to which I say well fair enough then, my musing being in response to the various comments saying anyone convicted of anything involving a child should be included.

You're making a pretty sweeping statement there. I don't want to get into whataboutery and defending paedophiles, but I think there are degrees in all things. A 20-something teacher who has a what would otherwise be consensual relationship with a 17 year old pupil probably isn't a danger to their own toddler child.

She’s changed her tune.

Just remove their genitalia
Job done

It does not stop them though.

Second that, it doesn’t stop them. Can do a lot of harm without a penis, just read up on the abuse done by female pedophiles.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mums-fury-new-law-fails-31676381

An update on this, published today