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

They met last summer on their first date he told her he is a convicted sex offender and she has married to him and is 8 months pregnant with his baby already. Honestly, that to me says screams "this person either has deep seated issues (doesn't feel she can get anyone better?) or makes terrible life decisions or both. The fact she didn't make her excuses and leave the second he told her about his past is mad imo.

Makes me so angry that "desperate for a child" overtakes the need for a child to have a stable life. even if that child doesn't stay with them and goes to an adopted family and is loved and cherished it will be on their file what the bio family set up is.

ziggiestardust:

What if it's just a normal, loving relationship between husband and wife, with no danger whatsoever to anyone?

I don't know if I would trust him with my child - I've never met him. I'm not in any way excusing him but I am interested that it appears there is nothing he can do to make this better. He was charged with images rather than actual contact and, from what I've read (happy to bow to people with more knowledge here) it is quite a big leap that most people never make. Again, I reiterate that I am not being a paedophile apologist I'm just wondering if taking such a black and white stance doesn't push "minor" offenders further in as they have nothing to lose?

I hadn't properly taken into account the description of the woman as "vulnerable" though so I appreciate that in this specific instance it may well be unwise for him to have contact with the child but I think my point still holds generally - if you are charged, is that it? Is there nothing you can do to make it better? Because if that's the case, people who ARE charged may well decide that they may as well go further.

Maybe this isn't a conversation for this thread...

It's as depressing a story as it is sad.
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but has a paedophile ever been rehabilitated? Is that even possible? It's just something that is such a complex psychological predilection I can't see how someone can have such an extreme and disturbed inclination and then suddenly not anymore.

Poor baby. Yes, it must be taken into care.

From the quotes she sounds articulate enough...intelligent enough. She chose to have sex with a filthy pedophile....I don't get why she sounds "vulnerable" as someone else said. Of course she should not keep the baby if he's still with her.

A normal good relationship you don't have to make the decision between an actual real life baby and your husband waffle... and if the partner is making you choose it's not a good relationship.

my friend had it worse the social workers turned up when she had just given birth and told her she couldn't take her son home as his dad was convicted of phedophile crimes against male children apparently if she had a girl they would have stayed out of it she ended up in a vulnerable mental state and had him adopted her last sight of her child is as she chased the car down the road sobbing she had changed her mind

when she got pregnant years later with someone else they got involved again and put the baby on the child protected register even though she was with someone else she couldn't have custody of her own child and was not able to even walk to the childrens centre alone with her she was escorted up there dropped off and had to wait for permission to leave the one time she left without telling them they threatened to call the police

there are no winners in this situation

the lady in the news knew what she was getting into she was incredibly selfish there are plenty more men willing to impregnate women ive less sympathy for them loads for the child though

Of course she is vulnerable she got pregnant very soon after meeting a man who is a paedophile she thinks she is hard done by. This man had 100s of Indecent pictures of children rehabilitated my eye. That baby needs protected from both its parents imo

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.

I agree, but I do think that instead of just standing back to see if the cycle will continue into the next generation, we ought to fund proper therapy and support for these children as they grow up in the hope that they can make better choices in their adult lives.

As for this case, this man should never be allowed access to children. Presumably he is barred from teaching or any other work involving direct contact with children for the rest of his life. As he is on the sex offenders register, I suppose there is some mechanism for referral to social services when someone on the register is about to procreate. I'm glad it's worked this time. Poor kid.

Champagne, actually, sexual offenders definitely do escalate and looking at images is very often a precursor to acting out. It may not be of course but given that this man had a huge quantity of highest category images I'd be very surprised if he hadn't already acted out sexually with a child or adult. This man is not at the 'curious' or 'intrigued' stage at which point he might be able to turn himself away from child sexual abuse or be turned away through intervention, he's well into the rationalised, dedicated abuser state. So no, in my opinion he's never going to be a safe person to be a parent. If that sounds harsh, well that's thje price people pay for consuming vast numbers of images of child rape and sexual abuse.

No I dont thing they should. She got into a relationship knowing he was a convicted paedophile and is putting her child at risk. I think SS will end up removing the child from them tbh.

FuckOffWeasel: A normal good relationship you don't have to make the decision between an actual real life baby and your husband

Absolutely.

It's an interesting philosophical debate, although perhaps not for this thread. I found the blanket sweeping generalisation that all parents would choose a specific way, to be interesting.

Also irl he would not be allowed to work with children so the same goes for his own child. She embarked on a relationship knowing this information, I dont think she would be able to adequatly protect this child like someone else has said.

Deaky apparently if she had a girl they would have stayed out of it well that's nonsense. Peadophiles are risky to all children, they may have a preference but that doesn't mean they are safe with any other children.
Your friend sounded very vulnerable but it's hardly surprising that social workers were concerned about her second child, given her history.

That poor child. I'm not surprised SS are worried: she's so desperate she's overlooking one massive glaring red flag so she can get what she wants, she's likely in denial and delusional. He's been convicted of such images and fantasies and now has someone having a baby that he can groom from the moment its born. Which it's extremely likely that he will given that he'll have motive and extreme opportunity.

Probably the only reason he hasn't actually moved to contact is because of opportunity and fear, now he has a woman to hide the truth and a child to abuse with that truth he's al sorted. Poor poor baby.

Well, champagne- yes and no. He will never be allowed to be a teacher again, nor work with children or vulnerable adults, because it is judges their right to be protected from the threat he may pose trumps his rights to "make it better". That's the way things are, because ultimately when you have to conflicting needs (the right to be safeguarded vs the right to rehabilitation/2nd chance) then one always has to be put first and those are the needs of the child/vulnerable adult. It's safer not to take that risk.

I understand your point, but there are some things that just can't be "made right" and everything return back to normal. And I do seriously question whether ones sexual preferences can be altered by a prison sentence and some therapy.

This man, a teacher of young children, got off on watching children sexually assaulted and raped, even if he didn't actually do the abuse physically. He may or may not ever have intended to moved onto actually physically harm a child personally. I dot think n't he helped feed the truly evil "industry" of child pornography. This was not a victimless crime or "just looking at some horrible photo's".

If taking this stance, pushes him, or others like him into re-offending as he has nothing to lose, then they were never rehabilitated in the first place.

It is quite disturbing that they've apparently approached the paper as poor hard done by people that are being needlessly harassed by SS. either bother in a shocking state of denial about the whole sorry mess or they are seriously twisted.

Mrs X does come across as being articulate and maybe on paper at least, intelligent but she can still be vulnerable. Maybe she is incredibly needy or has low self esteem? who knows? either way that baby deserves better. as one of the commenters on the echo site said "girl give your head a wobble". sound advice right there but think its probably too late. She said she cant make the choice.

Why is that waffle? I hadn't really thought of it to be the other way round.

I know of one man, a member of my bf's family who did a rehabilitation course after possessing indecent images. A few years later he was at it again and this time also in the process if grooming friends dd.

They do not ever get better from this

genuine ???

do people men and women that have been convicted of sexual abuse get to live with children again then

if you are charged, is that it? Is there nothing you can do to make it better? Because if that's the case, people who ARE charged may well decide that they may as well go further.

Wouldn't that indicate, though, that they really AREN'T rehabilitated? If not being allowed access to children will make them think "well, if I am not trusted with children, I might as well be abusing them?"

I do believe it might be possible to be rehabilitated to some extent. That if someone understands the awful damage that paedophilia does to children, and that children are never willing partners, then they might be rehabilitated to the extent that they will never put themselves in the position of being around children.

But I also don't think society can afford to say "That's OK, we believe you and will trust you with our most vulnerable and helpless members." And I think rehabilitation would have to include accepting that their actions have been so vile that they CAN no longer be trusted completely.

She obviously can't be trusted to protect the child from him otherwise she wouldn't have chosen to have a baby with him. Of course they shouldn't be allowed to keep the baby. What did they think would happen?

This is one case where the baby should be taken in to care and adopted straight away. Those two should be sterilised.