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

Wafflewiffle

I am struggling to think of a situation where one would have to chose between your partner and your baby where the decision wouldn't be the baby.
Can you give me a scenario where you think the answer would be 'your partner'?

My friend worked with someone who was convicted of child abuse images, couple of years later, he did it again, my friend said she never wanted to see him again, amazingly others did.

I love my DH with all my heart, but I'd drop him in a heartbeat if it was a choice between him and the children. Not least because in circumstances like this, he'd have had a choice in what happened to cause that decision and they wouldn't.

"Rehabilitation" does not change sexual preference: nothing can do that. It aims to make offenders aware of the consequences of their actions and provide them with strategies for controlling their behaviours to keep vulnerable people, and themselves, safe.

It appears that the man in this case has gone against his own rehabilitation, so bleating about a second chance is pointless. His second chance was to be allowed into society by controlling his own behaviour aand limiting his chances of reoffending, and it appears that he is unable to that.

I think that the woman has made a desperately bad choice of father for her much wanted baby, but she's not the first to do that and she won't be the last. Calling for her to be "taken out back and shot" is neither constructive nor civilized, but a vile knee-jerk reaction that makes the poster appear ignorant and narrow minded, which I'm sure he/she isn't.

What is "a sex offender's rehabilitation course"?

Because the implication is that if you go one, you are cured. Not necessarily of your sexual pre-disposition, but of your belief that you are entitled to exercise that pre-disposition.

If you are not cured of that entitlement, then what is a sex offender's rehabilitation course? Who runs them? And what is their purpose?

Does anybody know?

I think that even if the circumstances leave the DP blameless (due to some hypothetical medical/immigration situation that means that DP and DC have to live in different countries) then it's a no brainer. Regardless of who you love more, your baby needs you more, and you have an overriding moral duty to them above and beyond what you owe to your DP.

I don't think it's something you can be rehabilitated from in all honestly. If you are attracted to children I do not think it is something you suddenly switch off.

They are run by probation services and also run in prison. They have strict criteria to be accepted and one is acknowledging guilt. They are quite intense and run over long periods of time 6-9 months I think. However, they don't have very good recidivist rates.

Of course many offenders agree to treatment because it shortens/replaces custodial sentences so you might question their commitment to rehabilitation.

You might compare it to DV perpetrator courses. Would you believe that a DV man who has completed a course is necessarily safe to have a relationship with? I wouldn't take the risk.

You might compare it to DV perpetrator courses. Would you believe that a DV man who has completed a course is necessarily safe to have a relationship with? I wouldn't take the risk.

was just gonna say the same

i was on a pattern changeing course and this came up about the perpetrator course,many drop out and the ones that stay do by the skin of their teeth

the re offending is high and some men use the course as a tool for their next relationship,they learn from it and not in a good way

Agree with furcoat.

One of the things that concerns me about that report is that the father is reported as saying "We’re pretty much resigned to the fact we’re going to lose him when he’s born.” If he had genuine concern for the baby, he would leave and go somewhere where it was a virtual certainty that his partner couldn't find him, so that at least the baby could stay with his birth mother.

If he were truly 'rehabilitated' he would not have allowed himself to impregnate someone

He demonstrates a real lack of insight to think this is in any way, shape or form an acceptable course of action to take: to enter into a relationship and actively attempt to reproduce

If he were truly rehabilitated he would know that entering into this situation would be putting himself at massive risk of reoffending. He'd be doing everything he could to never be anywhere near a child

No way should they be allowed to keep the baby; I can see why the woman is seen as vulnerable if she cannot make these connections either

I guess they will admit they are guilty what they did was wrong but doesnt stop the urges and feelings will it ? maybe this woman thinks he is cured or he wouldn't hurt his own child or she can help him or some such rubbish I wouldn't trust him or I couldnt stomach the thought of what he did.

It's a sexual proclivity; you can't 'rehabilitate' someone from, for example, homosexuality, (or heterosexuality) for that matter.

Some people find men sexually arousing, some people find women sexually arousing. Some people find inanimate objects sexually arousing.

He finds children sexually arousing. There is no rehabilitation. He will always be a risk.

I don't see paedophilia as being a sexual proclivity in the same way being heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual all are.

I see it the same way I see beastiality and necrophilia - a perversion, the actions of a sick person. Not sick in the kind of way that can be helped or managed though.

ClashCityRocker yeah, that's what I think too.
I am usually quite liberally minded when it comes to crime and punishment, but my gut instinct says paedophiles can never be rehabilitated and will always be a risk to society.
Maybe it's extreme of me to group men who view these images of child abuse with actual abusers but frankly they're just as sick to my mind.

SS have to take this child into care - the repercussions if God forbid the child ended up being abused would be horrific - obviously for the child but also for the fact that the individuals were already known to them.

As an aside, it genuinely horrifies me how often we hear of women who enable abusers. The Ian Watkins case, for example, or the case of the nursery worker (I've forgotten the exact details and don't feel like googling it because it really distressed me.) I honestly think that these women should have all of their children taken from them because they are clearly ill themselves if they can find a way to normalise child sex abuse.

My understanding is that current thinking is pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. Maybe in the future when they know more about it, they can improve rehabilitation to somehow "cure" it- who knows. But right now it's not considered likely. It's not like theft where you do your crime and come out with the benefit of the doubt until you do it again.

I think SS Are right to remove the baby for its safety and hope she can
Find the strength and self confidence to leave. Sadly she's more likely to just get pregnant again.

I am a retired social worker and dealt with many hundreds of child protection cases in a career that spanned some 30 years in total. I think this baby should absolutely be removed from this couple. This issue of "choosing" between baby and partner is far too big a risk, because I've lost count of the number of times a mother has told us that she would have nothing further to do with the violent/drunk/drugabuser partner and then we found out that they were together but denying it to us.

There is no way that this can be "policed" and so the risk is too great. Also why would a woman allow herself to become pregnant by this man - wholly irresponsible.

As far as rehabilitation is concerned I know for a fact that the prognosis for change in paedophiles is extremely poor to say the least. The profile of these men (and it is usually men) is that they are predatory and will seek out situations (he was a primary school teacher - great for a paedophile - access to young children) and then meets us with some woman of child bearing age in a café I think? and lo and behold she gets pregnant. NO NO and NO again. Baby must be removed at birth and placed for adoption.

Sorry I meant to say that an application should be made to the court for an Emergency Protection Order to allow social workers to remove the baby at birth, and then initiate Care Proceedings in the Family courts. I always stress this because so many people think social workers have the power to remove children and of course they don't, it is only a court that has that power. The police can remove a child on a Police Protection Order for 72 hours (well that was the case before I retired, so it might have changed now) in an emergency but the LA would be expected to apply for an EPO if this was deemed necessary to keep a child/ren safe.

I cannot imagine any court refusing an EPO or a Placement Order at a later stage to allow the baby to be adopted.

Maybe it's extreme of me to group men who view these images of child abuse with actual abusers but frankly they're just as sick to my mind.

not extreme at all, they are creating a demand for child abuse images which is then filled. They are just as guilty.

If he was truly rehabilitated he wouldn't be getting anyone pregnant, much less pursuing a relationship with mother and baby - that SS will never allow to happen. Quite rightly.
He must be a highly skilled manipulator to convince the poor woman to stay with him, even though she will lose her baby. Tragic.

I don't know whether rehabilitation is theoretically possible but as with even successful treatment programmes there will be those who don't respond and the problem with risk assessment is that you are relying on self report. Some people are good at playing the game and feeding professionals the lines they want to hear. I want to believe that people are capable of change but sadly the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I think anyone who commits these types of offences has to accept that they undergo treatment to reduce risk of reoffending but that doesn't mean the slate is wiped clean. I think the rights of the child to be protected from potential risk always trump those of the offender.

I had a former teacher who was known for his preference for pubescent girls. Turns out he only ended up at my school because he was told to leave his previous job or they would report him

He went to prison in the end, for having an affair with a 6th former. We all knew that it had been going on since she was 14 though. And that she wasn't the only one. But there was no evidence.

There's another name for that isn't there, for men specifically attractive to pubescent girls/boys? It isn't paedophilia.