That this decision by Rotherham Council is unbelievable!

[mothertruck3r]

Well, not really unbelievable in this era of craziness but make me furious. It seems like the girls who were victims of these gangs still don't have any value (judging by the subsequent treatment by the Council) and their emotional and physical wellbeing is completely dismissed so that a rapist can see his child. What were Rotherham Council thinking!!??

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

This subject should be open for discussion and not swept under the carpet for fear of upsetting the Asian community,

Please don't use the description "Asian" community. The majority of the grooming and rapes were committed by Pakistani men. The Asian community is an umbrella term that could be used to describe Hindus, Sikhs and non-Pakistani Muslims from the Indian subcontinent and Asia (none of whom have been implicated in the mass rape and grooming of white and Sikh girls), and ironically it has been in the media this week that Sikh girls are also mass victims of these mostly Pakistani grooming gangs.

That's shocking Nothing, that User could be Female.

No, I said username wasn't saying anything already enshrined in law. I didn't quote any terminology, word it as the child's rights or parental rights, it really makes no odds. If it's found that it is in a child's best interests to have a relationship with its criminal father, then it is facilitated.

It's the law and it's current and it happens everywhere, it isn't some controversial idea born out of Rotherham council which is what concerns me about the way this has been reported. It has been reported that Rotherham Council did not avail themselves of a commonly used exemption. All they had to do was ask a judge. It is done every day, all over the UK.

I am more concerned about people not acknowledging the legal fact that the council had a choice and, even knowing ALL of the details in this case, did not use it!

Which wasnt*

I think everybody acknowledges that

Ah OK Blanche

To me it read as an endorsment of user's assertion that this man has a "right" to his children
Which is not true.

I'm not so sure, Blanche.

So I might repeat it

So just to check

Blanche User said this

"The crime was against her for which he's being punished.
His child has a right to know their father - and he has a right to know his child."

You said "Username isn't saying anything which isn't already enshrined in law."

Do you mean that user is right that a man has rights to his child irrepsective of what he has done?
Or do you mean that the law acts as if this were the case even though the wording is actually about the childs rights? In which case I agree with you.

If I may... Jeremy Vine/BBC reporters asked the MoJ that this morning, after Rotherham had confirmed that they were only following the law.

The MoJ response was to not answer the question as asked but to confirm that their is a mechanism by which a council can have the need to inform removed - thus insinuating that there is a legal need to inform a parent, no matter what. Convoluted!!!

The second one, nothing.
The child has legal rights and they are used widely to form or continue relationships with criminal fathers.
I don't know if username meant the father had legal rights and was mistaken, or moral rights which is their opinion. But let's not all be shocked that fathers being convicted of rape or other crimes automatically means they won't have access to their children anymore because it isn't true.

But let's not all be shocked that fathers being convicted of rape or other crimes automatically means they won't have access to their children anymore because it isn't true. I think it is more that fathers who raped the under age mother of the child, resulting in the child, and does the same to other under age girls, would be an entirely different kettle of fish and probably should automatically be stripped of any rights to access that child, and its mother - who may still be vulnerable to or traumatised by him!

I don't think I would disagree with your statement if it weren't applied to this man, in this instance! I don't think there must be a new law, but Rotherham have to come up with a reasonable reason for not having made a more sensible decision in this case

Is there really a story here? The rapist hasnt actually asked to see the son and as others have said, if he did, the biy must be an adult now

"The rapist hasnt actually asked to see the son"

Oh that makes it OK then!

He shouldn't be consulted about anything at all imo.

Just looking, the lady who was raped as a 15 year old, is 33 now, so her child will be 18, so they are an adult now, and can make their own decisions to be in contact with their 'father'.

I believe the child (17) himself asked about being able to see his father and to visit him in prison; he subsequently changed his mind. Even if the law stating that the father needs to be apprised of his right to apply to be included in Care proceedings this request by the child would have given rise to a need for the Council to contact the prisoner wouldn't it?

Yes, I think it would be better to have a sort of 'opt in' model about rapists and sex offenders having contact with their children, where those rights are automatically removed; if there is a very good reason (though heaven knows what that might be - the mind boggles) why contact should be allowed then very limited rights could be considered on individual merit. Mostly, I suspect a Judge would be able to deal with that side of things at the same time as sentencing occurs.

It would be helpful if that applied to domestic abusers too, imo.

Bestseller there are two things here that seem to be getting confused. The council have apparently informed the biological father of the fact that Family court proceedings are taking place. Is this the same thing as telling the biological father that he has a right to contact and that he would be successful in such a situation ? And if he was in any way interested in that right to contact, would he not have made some sort of application prior to this time ( not sure if he has historically ) and what would be his rights if he is not named as the father on the birth certificate ?

If the child in question has complex needs it may be that he is classed as a child until older than 18, if memory serves me right ?

What really matters is that the person who conceived a child through the absolutely disgusting act of rape of a child and the child who was conceived as a result are protected from further distress and harm.

The council have said that they can't comment about the specific case but that they 'welcome the debate' about the law. That's about as much as they can say but it translates to 'we're not happy with the position it puts us in'

The principles about informing a parent about care proceedings is HUGE in family law. And that's 'known parent' regardless of whether theyre on the birth cert, and it's as much about paternal family as it is about the biological father. I've worked in this arena for 10yrs and I've never known an application not to notify to be successful, and they're rarely applied for. It's generally assumed that the parent gets the opportunity to have their say, and if they're a danger they get over ridden. As much as anything in some cases it helps to do so to prevent future legal challenge (for want of a better phrase, they get given enough rope to hang themselves)

I think anyone would agree that a law change would be helpful for such extreme cases where things are so clear cut.

The council have apparently informed the biological father of the fact that Family court proceedings are taking place. Is this the same thing as telling the biological father that he has a right to contact and that he would be successful in such a situation?

Not the same thing at all, no.

Thanks for your thoughts threadastaire. I'm not current but your account would fit more closely with my understanding of the subject than the people claiming it's routine.

They are not easy issues.

No, he was told that if he would want to pursue contact, then he would need to go to court. It's been inaccurately reported for the headlines.
Yes, RC should not have disclosed any details of the court case to him, but someone else made the cock up of naming him as a respondent on the court papers.

Haven’t read full thread so this might already be posted but here it is again anyway

www.change.org/p/david-gauke-stop-rapists-from-accessing-children-conceived-through-rape?recruiter=87189674&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share&utm_term=459882

“@BlancheM” he was actually informed of care proceedings being brought by the Local Authority. Contact doesn’t come into it. Had he wanted to be a party to those proceedings, he’d have had to apply to the court for permission, as he doesn’t have legal PR. The court could then have refused, and thus end of his involvement.

I'm a bit confused. The article says the rapist hasn't made an application, so why were the council contact him in prison and promising him he would be kept involved?

What good is involving a man jailed for 36 years?

It's disgusting that they even considered it. Never mind how old his child is now, he has no right to come into contact with his victim. And he will through her son if he gets contact. Rotherham Council should be ashamed of themselves, don't know how they can live with themselves for saying he can have contact.

Britain shows again that criminal rights mean more than the general publics rights, and especially more than their victims. What a country we live in.