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

@Justanotherlurker

I am no fan of TR far from it

You obviously are a fan

but they were initially set up because of the epidemic going on

What epidemic? And why then were EDL arrested for plotting bomb attacks on mosques? They also had links with the terrorist Anders Breivik. Stop supporting and defending terrorists!

remember the "muslamic ray guns" that everyone was falling over themselves to laugh at, myself included, turns out taking the piss out a drunk working class kid with a speach impediment talking about muslim rape gangs hasn't aged well.

There are no 'muslim rape gangs'. The men who carried out these rapes are no kind of Muslims that I know. Your agenda is very obvious.

Also remember the UAF organising marches because of the claims of TR et al saying that talk of the now known epidemic was racist within itself?

The UAF organised marches against the EDL because the EDL were plotting bomb attacks on Muslims and other racist attacks.

There is a lot of revisionism that goes on

Yes, and you are one doing it on this thread.

@M4J4 the council made the application, for care proceedings. The law says that when they do this, they legally have to inform all parents of the proceedings. That’s what they did. That’s it.

They didn’t invite him to have contact, nor did they support it.

As the abuser didn’t have PR, he could have applied to the court for permission to be joined as a party to the LA’s care proceedings. The court could have refused that permission and likely would have, and that would have been the end of his involvement. But he never made that application.

It’s been blown out of all proportion.

Thanks Oratorio, that's clear.

Why don't we change the law that says convicted child rapists have to be notified of ANYTHING to do with children they father?

What use is that law? Surely you can exempt convicted incarcerated child rapists from whatever purpose that law exists to fulfill?

A child rapist who groomed and abused vulnerable children- now will know the identity (if not previously known) the rough location (if not previously known) and that the child is vulnerable... all information they can pass on to the wrong people and endanger that child

It is not the fault or decision of Social Services- they had a legal duty to do this unfortunately.

@interestingdebatetoday I completely agree. That ought to be the discussion we are having, but unfortunately the media have chosen to report it as social worker bashing, so the real issue of the law has got lost.

@Oratorio yes... although there are also issues in this case which either Sammy is lying about (I find hard to believe) is misguided (again, possible... but she strikes me as a very intelligent, caring woman who has her sons best interests at heart- who I don't believe wouldn't have demanded to see copies of exactly what has been sent/said to her rapist) or she is telling the truth and actually someone has seriously fucked up (but who?!)

I personally believe someone has massively and that needs investigation, addressing and prevention as well as the law being changed

they had a legal duty to do this unfortunately. They also had a legal mechanism by which they did not have to contact him at all - they CHOSE not to do this, despite it being an every day, common occurrence, according to many professionals speaking out across all media!

According to the mother they wrote telling him that he had the right to apply for parental responsibility which, at the time this was done, would have meant he had the right to decide what school the child went to etc etc etc.

Rotherham Council have confirmed that this is what they did, claiming that they had no choice, which is not true! The MoJ have said that they could have applied to a judge to NOT have to contact him at all!

The point is NOT what the father did with that information but what the council intended when they sent him that letter. They had all of the information about the circumstances, they knew full well who he was. The question is why they chose to adhere to one part of the law and not to use another? It is inconceivable that nobody knew about the legal waiver, so why did they not seek it?

In short: Anyone saying "Oh well, they were legally obliged to contact him" is wrong, the MoJ have confirmed this.

The professionals speaking out about this have said very different things about how everyday and common the High Court applications are. As have those of us in this thread. One thing that seems pretty clear is that it's nowhere near standard practice. Nor are such applications guaranteed to succeed.

It’s the nutcase laws that need a change to prevent it.

It's very difficult. Bringing unnecessary court proceedings costs us (council tax payers) absolutely masses of money so you can see a council saying should we send one letter or spend £xxxxxx on a court application and I don't know if they would have succeeded or not. If the teenage boy going into care or whatever it is has already said he wants contact with his father (if he has) then that certainly complicates things. If it were a toddler whose father had been put away for abusing 4 year olds including the child's older sibling for example then I can see it would be dangerous to have contact of course.

"they legally have to inform all parents of the proceedings."

How is he a parent in any sense of the word?

Is he on the birth certificate/has PR?

You don't have to be either for the obligation to inform you in the absence of a court order saying otherwise to kick in. Biological will suffice.

I lived in Rotherham when this abuse was happening. Roger Stone who was leader of Rotherham council used to be our union man at work, he was totally useless even then.

My friend worked in schools which many of the victims attend, there was nothing you could do or say, to stop the girls going with these men, they thought they were their boyfriends. It's only when the girls have got older that they can see the situation for what it was, abuse.

It beggars belief that the council and social services would let the rapists have a say in the child's upbringing, but not totally surprised, all in the name of racial cohesion which is why everyone at the council knew it was happening and did nothing.

I was going to do a post about this, its horrendous! As if they havent been through enough!!
I havent read the whole thread properly so sorry if anyone has posted this already but i thought id post this for anyone interested, I got an email from change.org about a petition for it:

https://www.change.org/p/david-gauke-stop-rapists-from-accessing-children-conceived-through-rape?recruiter=313837335&utmsource=shareepetition&utmmedium=copylink&utmmcampaign=psfcombooshareinitial.pacificcabiselecttallcontacts.selecttall.pacificemaillcopyennus3.control.pacificcemailcopyyengbb4.v1.pacificemaillcopyennus5.v1.pacificcpostsappsharegmaillabi.control.lightning2primaryyshareoptionssmore.control&utm_term=459882

It beggars belief that the council and social services would let the rapists have a say in the child's upbringing

Probably because no part of that sentence is accurate.

Social Services aren't responsible for this at all. There were care proceedings, in which the council's legal department is always involved. Councils have a legal obligation to notify any parent, which would include a bio parent without parental responsibility such as this rapist, UNLESS they have applied for AND been granted an order from the High Court telling them they don't have to.

There is a legal mechanism that exists to do this. RCC appear not to have made the application, though I'm not sure anyone has actually confirmed it for definite. Nobody knows why. Some professionals working in the field seem to have said it's the norm to make this application, others have said it isn't. That evidently means it's not standard, or everyone would be saying the same thing. There are many reasons they might not have done it: incompetence, knowing it wouldn't succeed because of some factors specific to the case, cost. Nobody on this thread actually knows what the reason was and anyone who says they do is reaching.

I can see why you wouldn't trust RCC as you've lived in that area before, so I hope this summary is helpful for you.

@CuriousaboutSamphire it really isn’t common for councils to apply to not inform a parent about care proceedings. I’ve never seen it done. If you think about it, care proceedings by their nature involve adults who are considered to be abusive and harmful to the child, yet they still need to be aware of and involved in the proceedings.

In this case, the LA would merely have notified this man that they were bringing care proceedings. They may have pointed out that he does not have an automatic legal right to be joined as a party, as he does not have PR, but this does not mean he could not apply to the court for permission to be joined as a party. If he had done so, I am absolutely certain it would have been dismissed by the court, thus sending him a very clear message that he will not be considered to be a part of this child’s life or decision making for the child.

The council may well have decided that an application to not notify would cost more court time, more resources, cause delay for the child in proceedings, and may well not succeed. Given the alternative is the father being told a very swift No, had he bothered to apply to be part of the care proceedings.

There was never any talk of contact, nor any support for the abuser.

There's a thread with a link to Sammy Woodhouse's petition if anyone wants to sign and bump

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3437221-Sammy-Woodhouse

Bump for the petition.

@interestingdebatetoday - the only reason I can think why this isn't written into the law is because the convicted child rapist could be another child e.g. a 14 year old boy raping a 12 year old boy, and then 30 years later he could have had a female child and need to be notified. Ideally as a PP pointed out you allow people to hang themselves as it is easier to argue isn't in the child's interest for the father to have contact otherwise the father will waste our money going to court and higher courts using the Human Rights Act.

AMy, I agree. eg might be a romio and juliet couple both 14 or she is 15 and he is 18 which of course is illegal but in my view should not mean he is never told about his child and what is happening with it. Even this case the girls awfullly though they were treated felt in some cases they consented at the time and these men were their boyfriends so it is not even perhaps as bad as someone who meets you in the street and leaves you for dead after beating you and almost killing you and you get pregnant. However all these case are "rape" as might be a case where husband and wife long married have a fight, she is raped or says she is and should that resulting child find its father is not even told about care proceedings?

Oratorio We obviously have different experience of the 'stay' and how often it is used - and I admit my knowledge is about 15 years old. But there were a fair few SS lawyers expressing incredulity, across radio and newspapers, that the appropriate paperwork had not been put in front of a judge prior to writing to Hussein!

And I didn't say there was any support or talk of contact! Just that if he had chosen to act he would have been asking for a court to grant him the usual parental responsibilites, which, as the mother outlined, could have included a say in choice of schools etc.

The question remains why RCC made the choice it did. If their answer is, as you say, they prefer to let the parent take their request to court, then that is their reasoning. But currently they are still saying that they had no choice in law... which is not true!

I would have thought that kind of application is expensive and if you can hardly perform your usual duties to children due to shortage of funds it is not unreasonable not to make a court application so that the father is not told his child is subject to care proceedings

(Romeo....)

I think it’s very sad and unfortunate that, despite the child having an allocated social worker, and despite Sammy having her own solicitor through the care proceedings, nobody explained to her - in a way she could understand - exactly what had happened and why. It would have put her mind at rest and reduced the stress she’s had to deal with.

Agreed.