Childrens rights v the rights of the (criminal) father. Disgusted..yes, Horrified..absolutely, surprised..Sadly, no.

[littlemisssarcastic]

Unless this article is completely fabricated?

This is just one example imo of how children are not always protected in our society, and that sometimes, the 'human rights' of abusive parents do come before the rights of the children.

Here

I hope the mothers ignore every contact order put in front of them. There is no way I would allow my child to go with a convicted paedophile including a child rapist just because they were the father.

Madness in our family courts again.

Paedophiles have also won the right to have UNSUPERVISED access to their children as it would breach their human rights to keep them apart, judges said.

They have the right maybe......BUT if it went to family court for a court order then I doubt a judge would rule unsupervised to happen if cafcass have done welfare reports.

Well they would have to lock me up for breeching the court order as there is no way I'd give them access to my child

I'm with you on this one - no way would my exh being having any kind of access with my ds if he was a convicted Paedophile, or child rapist. This makes my stomach churn

You might like to read this article about the judgment as well as the Daily Mail.

I hope this article is incorrect, I really do.

If not the family law is getting beyond the joke it even is now in the UK.

How about children's rights for once?

Each day I am growing a tiny bit more angry at the UK, its just turning into a horrible place....

OH MY GOD! This is disgusting, I'm trying to prevent my DC's having contact with a father who abused my DD, so looks like it's prison for me then...... but I guess that would be ok, breaking up the family, as long as pedo dad has all his rights in tact. SICK SICK SICK

The courts dont give a shit do they?

They think its all beneath them in their ivory towers.

Well anyone who gives sympathy and rights too Child abusers over innocent children is atcually deeply stupid, immoral and in the wrong job.Just think they get paid all this money to wreck children's lifes.

Family law is getting worse all the time.

I hope you get a good outcome phil I feel awful for you and your dd

I saw the thread title and just knew it would have a DM link in it...

I hope that this - like the furore earlier this year about blanket time on the sex offenders register - is simply about the blanket nature of these rules.

It seems to be saying only that an automatic ban in every case would be a breach of human rights. Not that a considered, individual ban would be a breach.

Here is the earlier thread about ending the automaticity of indefinite placement on SOR.

Sorry but they would have to lock me up because there is no way my 3DCs would have any form of contact with this sort of person and if they did lock me up, my DM would have them and refuse to let him see them too. What is the world coming to . . . :(

Philosowatzit - I can utterly understand why you would be freaked out by this article - but I don't think that this judgement will have any effect in your situation.

The judgement says that the rights of the father to a family life have to be considered before their access to their children is removed or restricted - but that doesn't mean that all fathers found guilty of these sorts of offenses will get access to their children.

Whilst what the four men in the article did is disgusting, immoral and utterly unacceptable, what your ex did is far worse, and I find it almost impossible to believe that any judge would give someone who had been convicted of abusing his child/children unsupervised access to those children - and if one did, you would have an almost unassailable case for an appeal, so please don't let this worry you.

I would honestly expect a judge in your case to say something along the lines of, 'I have considered X's right to a family life, and do not consider that this right outweighs the rights of his child to safety and freedom from the risk of abuse and from having to see their abuser again - so I am not going to order access for this father to his child.'

I thought fathers didn't have rights, only responsibilities, same as mothers.

I wish society would concentrate more on the rights of the children when it comes to situations such as these.

I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about some NRP's being more concerned with their rights than their responsibilities. These men who viewed child pornography online should have thought about the impact their disgusting habit had on their right to a family life before they viewed the child pornography.

I couldn't agree more, littlemiss.

what babybarrister said...

Oh baby barrister

I can only assume you have never been on the wrong end of trying to protect your child from a monster.

Do you have any idea the sheer hell parents go through knowing the court has failed to protect them and their children? No you haven't a clue.

The message as, as you have written yourself is in spite of the red lights showing this persons character ("Many parents may be depraved and disgusting in a variety of ways but it does not always follow that they present a risk to a particular child"); lets keep exposing and risking them to danger- unless 100% evidence in the future shows he has indeed hurt his child.

Why take that, frankly, sick risk?

Oh you say "You can all sleep at night - this is not a licence for paedophiles to go on the rampage" inspite of clearly writing the judge will likely grant access to the paedophle if the child happens to be the 'wrong' gender!

The courts are just a joke and my respect for them is zero

Its a shame more people aren't reading around the DM article instead of getting hysterical--which is IMO what the DM seem to write for.

Bollocks- we are real people how been through these problems YEARS ago and know the reality. We don't need a newspaper to tell us how it is- we have actually lived through it

the Children's Act 1989 does not give any rights to either parent - it is about the welfare of the child

Imo, whilst this may be what the childrens act was intended to be about, it is not the reality, and that is an overall opinion, not specifically wrt paedophilia. I did not form my opinion from any newspaper article, but rather from my own and other RL experiences.

On saying that, AFAIC, a paedophile should never be given unsupervised access to any child, regardless of the sex of the child who has been abused.

babybarrister Do you have links to your statement that the fact is that many paedophiles do not abuse their own family and would never do so [no, that does not make them "great" people to have around obviously]

AFAIK, a child is more likely to be abused by a member of their own family or a close friend of the family than by a random stranger, so I am interested to see where you get your information from.

Oh and babybarrister, some judges do live in ivory towers are out of touch with reality, but it's nice to see that you have so much faith in judges as a whole. Perhaps you would like to defend this judge too babybarrister??

(Not a DM link this time Littlewhitewolf you'll be pleased to hear!)

Look, the Daily Mail article is just another 'Human rights are AWFUL, you don't really want to have them!' squawk. The DM are just as happy to print articles criticizing women who won't let their XPs see the children on the grounds of XPs being abusive.

That may be the case SGB, but this isn't just about the DM. It's about the fact that sex offenders may be permitted in the future to have unsupervised access to children, based on what a particular court decides on a particular day, and in fact, regardless of what you have been searching/browsing/downloading on the internet, or whom you have been grooming on the internet, the days of a blanket ban of the internet for sex offenders is now gone.

FWIW, family courts also tend to criticise mothers who wont let their XP's see the children on the grounds that their XP's are abusive, and the courts rarely listen to the mothers on this issue anyway, so the DM isn't the only one. Difference is that the DM doesn't issue orders on a daily basis that affect children's lives, the courts do.