To ask whether you think a parent should be prevented from having (physical) contact with their child?

[Thistledew]

If that parent has committed a criminal offence?

They would be allowed contact by phone, email, letter etc, but the parent and child would not be able to have physical contact.

If so, what offences do you think this should be applied to? How long do you think the separation should last? Does it make a difference how old the children are, or whether the parent and child lived together before the parent committed the offence?

What are your views on this OP...?

'role model' doesn't really come into it. It is the parents ability to take care of the needs of the child.

An assessment of the parent would have taken place if they were being released after a crime such as murder.

The children Act looks at right of the child, not of the parent. Witholding contact should never be used to punish the parent, but there may be cases where the child's right to safety means contact must be stopped. It depends completely on whether the crime committed indicates a risk to the child that cannot be managed in a controlled setting.

Even convicted paedophiles can have contact with their children if it's the right thing for the child, under very controlled conditions.

Contact is less likely to be stopped for a parent being convicted of a crime, and more likely when a parent is just inconsistent or emotionally abusive and disrupts a child's stability, IME.

Prisoners still get contact with their children

The children go to prison to visit

really bizarre question, if the parent is a risk to the child the court will award full custody to the non crime committing parent that parent will no longer have rights to visit that child and would presumably be unable to because they are i jail.

I think having physical contact with your child and having sole responsibility are two completely separate things.

I am in the middle of court proceedings with my ds's father(ex). He was sent to prison for drug dealing and spent just under 3years in prison. DS has never had a close bond with his father so I felt it right that he never went to prison visits. His father was allowed to call from prison anytime he like and write letters etc. Having allowed this my ex decided just to argue with me on these calls and barely said a word to DS who was only 5 at the time. Court stopped all telephone contact and allowed just indirect contact i.e letters and cards. Ex came out of prison last year and DS who is now 8 has decided he doesn't want to see him, having never replied or even bothered to read any of the cards/letters his father sent. Obviously ex is protesting this and blaming me for 'putting things in ds's head' so now going through a long court battle...apparently DS isn't old enough to know what he wants...which is utter crap he's 8years old and has a mind of hid own. In my eyes a drug dealer is not a good role model for my son to be around

The research shows that the rate of offending drops when the prisoner stays in contact with their family.

There is still a gap in the system with regards to parents who are in prison or sectioned.

The probation service has been cut back on massively so are really only interested in stopping the person from re-offending but it is a very disjointed service.

Foreveryours- it is about the age of 10 that DC's are considered mature enough to have a say.

I know of a parent who is serving 22 years for murder, the DC's lived with both parents before this happened.

The RP has been moved to a 'safe house', the RP visits the prisoner with the DC's, all arranged by a SW. They have deemed her safeguarding ability to not 'be upto scratch' so this situation will be monitored. The prisoner will never be able to live in the same house as them as he poses a risk by being there, because others will target him.

This is common in other crimes, it may not be the actual person who poses a risk, but their presence. One Local Authority can apply to use a contact center in another, so visits are far from both addresses.

A friend of mine's mum was murdered by her dad - there was years of physical abuse and her mum had actually escaped and created a new life for herself. He meanwhile was banned from contacting her or coming near her. Except because he was entitled to contact with the kids, little details about where they were living slipped out... He took a carving knife and butchered their mother.

That is why I think anyone who is convicted of violent crime should not be allowed contact whatsoever with their kids - the parent should be able to completely cut contact and then if the kids decide aged 18 that they want to get back in touch, then they can do so without putting that parent at risk. But enforcing contact is simply drawing out the process.

The issue of whether contact should be ordered when one parent is resisting it is a different point to what I am getting at here. For the purposes of this thread I am talking about when both parents want the convicted parent to have contact with the children and/or to rejoin the family, the children want it too, and there are no concerns that the offending parent will pose a risk of harm to the children or the other parent.

The issue is whether there can be any public policy arguments, such as that there will be a cost saving in not having to support the rehabilitation into the family, and that there will be no, or less of a negative influence on the children so they are less likely to offend themselves in the future.

You didn't mention cost saving in the OP.

Would that change your answer?

No to your Q, OP. There is no public policy argument that makes sense in the situation you describe.

this is a very vague question with no sensible answer.

Either deliberately or accidentally, the OP doesn't want to say whether they have in mind repeated fare-dodging, or selling crack cocaine to schoolchildren.

The only sensible answer is "it depends on the facts of the case"

If the crime is of a violent sexual nature - Never. If it is physical violence-maybe. If they have a history then no. But if it was a one off occasion and not an attack on a child maybe. Otherwise if the crime didn't include child endangerment than I can't see the problem

If both parents and the children want contact, and there is not considered to be a risk to the children, then yes, it should be allowed. The type and amount of contact would depend on the individual case.

There are a number of possible answers. None of them is probably the "right" answer, but it is possible to take a view on them. As I see it the possible answers are:

1. Provided there is no risk to the child and/or other parent then there is no justification for the State to step in and separate parent and child;

2. There are justifications for separating parent and child, but only for very serious offences;

3. There are justifications for separating parent and child in a wide range of situation depending on the circumstances of each case.

If you consider there are justifications they could be:

A) moral;

B) cost to the public purse;

C) prevention of crime.