to think this couple should not be allowed to keep their baby?

[FuckOffWeasel]

How can there be any discussion?

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-woman-having-baby-convicted-7729662

Yanbu.

The fact she appears to have been very keen to have a child with him beggars belief.

Definitely should still be in prison.

Even if a convicted paedophile had done there time, rehabilitation etc I wouldn't want them anywhere near my daughter. He might not act again eg download images. But Im not sure I could trust the thoughts, feelings he had toward children could actually ever "go away"?. Horrible to think about!!!

Disgusting and selfish. Poor baby.

Is remorse and rehabilitation completely out of the question then?

YES

I ask that in all seriousness; he was very upfront about his conviction and he's done a course of rehabilitation. Is there no way he could ever be trusted with children again?

NO

Fucking hell, do you even have to ask?

He gets turned on by children being raped. He was in prison for 15 months. Prison, not a mind cleansing, miracle working, time machine.

He shouldn't even be out, let alone anywhere near a child, ever again. Ever. Let alone have 24 hr access to one and in time all their friends. No one in their right mind could find that acceptable.

The woman is either massively vulnerable or massively evil as well.

In my opinion, she shouldn't be allowed to keep this baby irrespective of whether she stays with this bastard or not.

We have had a few cases like this in our area over the last few years. In roughly half the woman chose to have her child taken into care to be with her partner/husband. I can't quite fathom it, myself.

How can social services not be concerned? This woman is described as vulnerable- exactly the sort of person who is likely to struggle to stand up to him and protect the child should he prove not to have been rehabilitated. Which may well be why he has chosen her.

The man was a teacher, who put himself in a profession where he would be in contact with children. Which gave him access to those children while in a position of power, authority and trust. That is quite a calculated thing to have done.

I can see the point that rehabilitation is supposed to give people a second chance. But it doesn't really cover a second chance at everything: he wouldn't be allowed to teach again- or hold any position where he would be required to work with vulnerable people again. Because the judgement is taken is that it is more important to protect these vulnerable people from the risk he might pose, than to give the offender a second chance.

Given that, I'm not sure that it as simple as he has served a 15 month prison sentence and now is magically rehabilitated enough to be a parent. I would have my reservations. Mainly as I'm not sure that something like sexual preference can simply be altered by a jail sentence plus possibly a "course" of treatment.

I think it possible that people can be taught not to act on their attractions, but I wouldn't want a convicted paedophile left alone in the company of my child in any capacity, let alone as their father. I can't see the risk being one worth taking.

I was aware of a similar situation when I used to do supported lodgings.

Obviously I will only give bare details, so no one is recognised.

Young lady who lived with me, got into a relationship with a man who was convicted of abusing young children. She didn't know for the first few months and it was social services who told her. She chose to continue the relationship and get pregnant because 'she loved him'.

I wouldn't say she had MH problems as such, but she had come from a background where her own Mother had a succession of different boyfriends and would push her kids to one side in favour of any new DP. She got pregnant to most of them. This meant that the young lady I looked after was just screaming for love and attention. It was also 'normal' to not be on your own and have a man by your side and have babies. (regardless of how shit they treated you).

She got the same ultimatum from Social Services. It's either the DP or the baby. She chose the DP and the baby was put into care. It was the right decision.

iamsoannoyed - he was a teacher??? I missed that bit!

It is quite common, for mothers to choose their abusive/violent/paedophile dp's over their children. I saw it in my previous job. Often the women making the choices now were the products of mother's who had made that exact same choice during their own childhoods.

It doesn't excuse it at all. It is a vicious circle though. But at some point, regardless of your appalling childhood you have to take responsibility for your life. Some people just can't and so it happens again and again.

this makes me so angry

she was as much to blame as him deciding to have a child

no excuses,total scum both of them

I don't understand why she's called it 'an impossible decision'!

Hmm... Baby or husband? Mmm, baby clearly! If you wouldn't make that choice, you shouldn't be a parent.

oak maiden- it says in the article that he was a primary school teacher.

LadyLuck10 agree 100%

i have MH issues cant say i have ever been tempted to mother a child by a paedophile or have a realtionship with one BEFORE 0r AFTER being told

i think we have to except women do choose men above their children,without all the usual exescuses trotted out

What I think is also frightening is that his conviction is obviously in the public domain so it can be reported that he had possessed over 10,000 or 100,000 (can't remember which but either is a massive amount) category 4 and category 5 level images of child sex abuse but this couple have obviously gone to the papers presenting themselves as victims of "overzealous" social workers. I think it shows an unbelievable sense of denial about the seriousness of his crime from both of them.

I hope the baby is taken into care and given the chance of a normal, safe life.

It's making me shudder.

Makes me think back to that thread where op didn't want to let her daughter go on a sleep over...imagine if THAT was the family hosting it.

Thinking that rehab works for pedo's is a bit like thinking those camps in America manage to train people not to be gay anymore

I agree ziggie- the thing is, in my experience, these women are vulnerable.

They may not be mentally ill, as such, but they are often vulnerable in a number of ways. Often the product of the care system, had mothers with sequential partners who never put the children first and had absent fathers, or homes which were chaotic where both parents essentially neglected them. Very few of these women come from stable backgrounds, are strong and resourceful personalities or have a decent education.The men in question target these types of women because they can manipulate and control them.

All of this dos not absolve these women of their responsibilities though- it's a reason for their actions, not an excuse for them. They are adults, and have to take responsibilities for the decisions they make.

She put herself in the position of making the impossible choice.

SS needs to take this child far far away.

This child would have no life at all. Especially now the parents have sold the story to the press.

And yes, some women make bad choices regarding partners and their children without any background of a troubled childhood or mental health issue. Some are just not very responsible or pleasant people.

Some women neglect and/or abuse their children mentally, physically and sexually- on their own or in conjunction with their partner. Some women know their child is being harmed by another adult and do nothing to stop it.

I'm not sure where this particular woman is vulnerable or not- although the article does state that this a concern.

ziggiestardust: Baby or husband? Mmm, baby clearly! If you wouldn't make that choice, you shouldn't be a parent.

I am interested. Is that just in relation to this case, or is your view in relation to all parents?

I am very heartened by the sensible comments from the Liverpool readers. As many said, shame on the paper for portraying it as a hard luck story.

One of the parents, a SAHD at my dcs primary school was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. Although the HT knew as the police had informed him when the dad was arrested the HT failed to pass it on to the other parents who given he apparently was out on bail was still organising play dates for his dc and having children over to the house. We the parents only found out when he was convicted and it made the newspaper. The only difference between these cases is that the one in our school the working wife was a solicitor who stayed with the father and there was no social workers involved in taking their children off them.

Either there must be something more to it than what has been reported or the fact that the wife was earning more than the primary school teacher. IYSWIM

When wouldn't you choose a baby?

Were the children not taken then mandy? Or it just wasn't social workers who took them?

waffle all parents! If your child is in danger from your partner; you take the child!

Vulnerable or not, as OP said there should be no question of this child staying with it's parents, together or apart.