**Trigger Warning** Title edited by MNHQ To want to know details of this person's crime

[AnonymousJuly2018]

I'm a regular MN user, but have set up a new account for the obvious reason of not wanting to be outed. This is a long message, and I probably won't post again after I've posted. I can't speak to anyone in real life because I don't want to let the information out and be able to hurt X's (adult) children or the rest of the family.

A close family member (X) died earlier this year. I have just discovered that, prior to X's death, they were under investigation for being in possession of indecent images of children. I have no more information other than this, and that it sounds like the images were from the internet, rather than of children X knew.

X did not deny it during the investigation, X's spouse (Y) knew about it (and from the sound of it had done for years), and says that X was seeking help to stop this 'addiction'. Y was the one who told me about it, and I have seen police papers which confirm that laptops etc were seized.

I am due to have a baby soon. I was pregnant before X's death.

Before this information came out, I would never have thought twice about having X, or Y, around my baby. I would very happily have had them babysit, including overnight. The thought of Y looking after my baby now makes me feel physically sick, as although Y was not the one in possession of the images, it doesn't sound as if they did anything to safeguard the children in them - even if they were images from the internet, Y should have done something. I also feel that they should have told us about this, as they knew we were having a baby, and would want them to look after him or her from time to time.

I feel so conflicted. Y is grieving, and I love Y a great deal, and don't want to stop contact. But I don't feel as if I can trust them any more.

I want to know more about X's crime - length of time it went on, the types of images X was in possession of, the ages of the children involved, how long Y knew about it, what Y had done to try and stop it, how Y could stay with X throughout all of this, when they were planning to tell us about this (they would have had to eventually, given that it was due to go Crown Court), why if X was truly trying to seek help they didn't tell us before.

I don't know if this will help, but I feel like I need to have an honest conversation with Y to try and regain some of the trust which has been lost. And how to I explain to Y that I'm not comfortable leaving my child alone with them without Y thinking it's just to punish them? How do I reconcile my anger towards X and Y with my wish not to stop contact with Y? How on earth can I protect my child in future, if this has come as such a shock - how can I maintain contact with Y and be happy that I am protecting my child? How can I pretend to the outside world that I am grieving X's death when all I feel is disgust, anger and betrayal?

I feel completely messed up. Any practical advice would be greatly appreciated. Please be kind.

My former manager is in prison for distributing child sex abuse images. His wife (now deceased) stood by him as she said he was 'ill'. Their children cut her off and refused to allow her to see the grandchildren, even after he went to prison and was no longer a danger to them. Not only because she allowed their children to be around him unsupervised, but because they felt her judgement was so flawed that she couldn't be trusted to protect them in the future.

I'd have done the same in their situation.

Y probably thought they were doing the best thing at the time. I don't think they should be tarnished by what somebody else has done, or even for choosing to stay with that person. They may have felt that staying and watching over X was going to be more helpful than leaving them to their own devices. And if they're older, older generations are less likely to walk away from a spouse because they have done something awful. Doesn't mean they never do, but it's less likely.

Write down all your questions and ask Y for a talk before the baby is born. It may settle your fears, or you may hear things that make you decide to go NC. But talking to Y is kinder than just cutting them off. Find out what their justifications were.

Etino, what do you think Y did wrong?

If they knew it was happening, ongoing, and conspired to hide it with X and accepted X not getting treatment then that’s terrible.

But from what little we know, X was receiving ‘help’ (treatment!) for it so Y was standing by them while they did so. If Y saw what was happening as a mental health issue such as addiction it makes sense they wouldn’t just walk away when doing so wouldn’t have made X stop either.

For me once trust is broken I can't go back. I might sound heartless, but I would limit contact with Y and only under supervised visits at the most.

I would have an honest conversation with Y along the lines of - 'its made me really uncomfortable what I know - how you were supporting X rather than throwing him out. Its made me question your judgement about serious matters' and see how that pans out. Y will then know why you are being stand offish and you can give it time to see her actions rather than her immediate words. Its going to be a long time before the issue of babysitting or a new partner comes up so there is no need to make ultimatums - just watch and see what her behaviour is like....

I think junglebooks suggestion is practical - you're obviously uncomfortable and concerned about Y's judgement (as I would be tbh) and openness and time may be what's needed. Part of me though would still think "how the hell can Y be with X?" knowing what X has done.

I don't think there's anything to be gained for confronting Y or trying to find out what he was viewing. There's nothing that could be said by Y that would mean you no longer question their judgement.

You don't need a big show down, just don't leave your dc with them alone- nor trust any new man they later date (you know Ys judgement is bad). Your dc can still see Y and you can still see Y, but don't trust them to be in sole charge.

If you do decide to talk to Y about it, leave it a few months. It's not just Y who is grieving, you are not only grieving the loss of X, but also the loss of the happy memories of who X was.

@LyndseyKola OP thinks the Y knew that X was viewing images of child sexual abuse had been going on for years.

Etino, OP said:

X did not deny it during the investigation, X's spouse (Y) knew about it (and from the sound of it had done for years), and says that X was seeking help to stop this 'addiction'.

I didn’t see anywhere where she said that Y knew about it the whole time unless I’ve missed it. I read it that it was possible it’d been going on years (though either OP has reason to believe it has and she wouldn’t have said ‘reason to believe’ or it’s just speculation) but that we don’t have any idea whether Y was aware from the start or only towards the end. So I don’t think we can say for sure Y knew for years and did nothing.

Please DO NOT let Y anywhere near your children.
She enabled an offender. Watching child porn is fuelling the demand and ensuring kids still will get abused to fulfil these sick fantasies. Personally, I would not even remain in contact with her. I couldn’t look at her.

I'm not sure you need to have the Big Conversation with Y about not letting her look after your baby alone. Just don't ask for it to happen. Honestly, my children are adults now and I can count on the fingers of 1 hand the number of times either set of grandparents babysat. We get on very well with all of them but we just never asked. If we went out the children came too. I don't think you need to make a big pre emptive stand. If it ever comes up that will be the time to address it.

Ive had similar here.

I’ve never allowed the enabler to see my children. Perpetrator is long dead but she enabled it for two decades and IMO should be in prison for it.

Firstly, I'm really sorry that you're going through this. Without a conviction I'm not sure the police would be able to tell you much to be honest. But, the crux of the issue is this - X is deceased and therefore cannot hurt you or your little one or put you at risk. Draw a line under that, you can't live on if's and buts. Y, on the other hand, was aware that a child had suffered harm. Y used information to justify to the self doing nothing about that harm. Y therefore, in my opinion, is a risk. If Y we're looking after the little one and became aware of something could/would they use a similar drastically flawed logic to justify inaction in the future? Indecent images of children cannot EVER be justified. No excuses, no rationalising, no question. If Y can justify something which the average person would find abhorrent then they could justify other things. You have all the information you need to make your decision OP - it doesn't mean you have to cut all contact, but it does mean you have to think carefully about what unsupervised access they have (if any)

How do you know Y is innocent in all of this? Y couldve had just as sick of an interest in it as X.

NewYearNewMe18 , I am amazed that you have done Safeguarding Courses, but haven't covered how dangerous someone who colludes and enables offences against children, can be. As for it not being a gateway crime. If left undiscovered, it often escalates. Especially when close loved one's sit by and do nothing.

LyndseyKola, to tackle the addiction, he would need to come of the internet.Any equipment to do that, should not be made available to him.

Without them steps taken, Y was colluding in the crime.

Unfortunately, people like Y are targeted by abusers. In the same way as DV Victims are by abusers. All Y was doing was allowing it to go on and staying in a relationship with someone who enjoyed looking at pictures of children being abused.

I would treat Y as someone who has been brainwashed, in a DV victim type of way. So supervised contact only.

Also by very wary if they start a new relationship and lets not forget, that it could have been both of them.

X post with El.

LyndseyKola , when it comes to anything to do with child abuse, the benefit of the doubt should not be given and we should air on the side of caution.

*irdoesn't matter what age the children were as underage is underage.

it doesn't matter what age the children were as underage is underage

I can't disagree strongly enough with this.

The images could have been of 15 year old 'naughty schoolgirls' having consensual sex with 18 year old men.

Or they could have been of 4 year olds being raped by 40 year old men.

I think it massively matters what age the children were tbph.

A trial like this can take a year to come to court or longer while the police investigate the computers and hardware.
During the Bail period he will have been offered counselling as a matter of course.
Because it was going to the Crown court and not the Magistrates this suggests that he had decided to defend his case or ask for further evidence to be provided by the police.
If convicted he would have been put on the sex offenders register and not allowed contact with your child.

I think you have already decided in your mumgut. I believe you wont allow Y unsupervised near your child.

I would also keep in mind that Y has already enabled X. That made Y vulnerable to X. It makes Y vulnerable to others with children too. Those pictures aren't just from the internet, they are very likely real children.

@Arum51 as a Child Protection Social Worker you shouldn't be using the term 'child porn'

I have two views here, my immediate opinion is that Y is not someone I’d allow around my child. The willingness of Y to live alongside X knowing crimes had been committed would be enough to limit or ban any future contact.

However, my grandfather was a convicted paedophile. My parents would still visit him (very rarely... wasn’t a close relationship!) and we would sometimes go, although never be left alone with him. I would never do this... but I can’t condemn my parents, we were always safe.

So although I have my opinion, I can’t say other opinions are necessarily wrong.

For me I’m afraid I’d struggle to want contact with Y at all. I think it would be much clearer to you had X not died, but because they have that has brought other feelings and emotions into play which are making the decision more difficult.

I personally couldn’t knowingly allow my child (supervised or not) to be around either a paedophile or someone whose immediate reaction to finding out their spouse is a paedophile wasn’t to either leave and cut contact or to kick them out. Regardless of whether there was a conviction (and it sounds like the only reason for there not being one was the death of X) the facts are still that X possessed indecent images of children, that at no point did they deny it and that Y was supporting them to “kick the addiction” despite knowing this. I couldn’t be around someone who was comfortable with someone who wanted to look at images of children in that way, never mind have my children around them. I’d have to cut all contact, I just couldn’t do it to my family to expose them to that set of morals any further.

And for the record I don’t think it matters one single bit how “underage” the children are. I can’t imagine any healthy or trustworthy human being intentionally looking for images of children regardless of their age.

To be frank, I'd have to wonder what kind of person would stand by some who they knew was looking at images of child rape.

It's not someone I would want around me or my kids.