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

Sammy found out IN court

Because a social worker told her he wasn't attending proceedings

The fact there was ever a question or option he could have... comes from her being told that he wasn't

Once already IN the court... a victim was told by a SW that her abuser was not attending court. She obviously is stunned that he had any options to.

The place for a victim to learn any of this... is not IN a courtroom

The behaviour of local authorities does strike me as imperialistic - you will see time and again whenever they are caught out, they simply have to go back and have the last word. This woman has been interviewed on the BBC lately, and the Council would have been thinking, right, we'll get this little missy if she thinks she's going to get away with this...

They do this knowing full well they'll get away with it.

For more victim-blaming form from Rotherham, see this link here, where whistleblower Jayne Senior gets 'investigated' for supposed wrongdoing - she's only the one who got an MBE for her troubles and a book on her part in the Rotherham scandal published. But it is mad thing that occurs with police and their sister organisations, the local authorities, with Hillsborough beingthe most famous example: 'You've got something on us? We'll get something on YOU!' They will escalate any conflict.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/rotherham-council-apologise-abuse-grooming-jayne-senior-whistleblower

This particular instance hardly qualifies as escalation. They've not said a great deal about it, and they could've made much more of a case in their favour in the press than they have.

A rape victim. A high profile victim plastered all over the media as she campaigns on behalf of other victims so definitely one who is probably paid most attention to by professionals who matter

Walked into a courtroom for care proceedings when she was voluntarily allowing her son to go into care

Didn't expect to hear about her rapist - he's been jailed for 35 years, has no PR, she's already proven in court he's a danger to children and a direct danger to herself and her son

And someone walks over and mentions "actually he isn't attending"

She's stunned and asks???????

And is told he was notified etc

Prior to her going anywhere near that courtroom... nobody thought to mention that she'd be told about him

Sammy has heard other stories. Sammy found her voice...

Let's not blame the victim for being stressed at hearing her rapists not coming to court today unexpectedly

So I suspect the problem here is the fact she did not have a solicitor then because presumably if she had that would be the person to tell her what happens in these cases. So we either need more solicitors provided or better websites so people can be told - click on this link as soon as care proceedings start and read it and it will tell you all you need to know including that the father is told care proceedings are going on althoug hwould we not all find it really strange if we as mothers (or our husbandsor ex huisbands ) would not betold about care proceedings. I would hate it if I weren't told so presumably even without solicitors and websites most parents know if their child is in care proceedings the other parent will be told?

Who's blaming Sammy?

She must've had a solicitor though if there were care proceedings, surely? Unless she had refused one, but that seems unlikely. You don't stop being entitled, as a parent, just because you're agreeing with the LA care plan.

I'm surprised at that video where she states that 'RC offered the rapist the chance to apply for parental rights over my child'. I thought she understood that this wasn't at all the case, but was using her platform to campaign for a change in the law? Someone needs to have saved her the stress!
Still signed the petition though, as generally speaking she is right and it does need to be amended.

Haven't read the thread.

Rotherham did not make any decision here. They served court proceedings on the father. The rules of court require them to do so. It's not optional. It doesn't mean he will see the child or be involved in any way with the child.

GeorgeTheHippo

Rotherham Social Services could have applied to the courts for an exemption in this case.

However, for whatever reason, they did not.

Because no one instructed them to, it appears. Seems more like a solicitor failing, same with Sammy being notified in court that he wouldn't be appearing. Should've been handled before that point, it's as if Sammy's particular history wasn't known.

We really don't have enough information to ascertain at this point whether it's a solicitor failing or not.

We don't know if the reason they didn't do it was because they had reason to believe it wouldn't be successful, or because the council won't fund this type of application, or because it would've further delayed proceedings and thus wasn't considered to be in the best interests of the child, or because the solicitor was supposed to do it and didn't.

These are all reasons it might happen and there simply isn't the information in the public domain.

True, we have no idea. That's why I said it seems like a solicitor oversight, when coupled with the fact that Sammy was approached in court and told the rapist wouldn't be attending...it goes without saying that he wouldn't be attending, what with him not being involved legally in the boy's life and being locked up.

In a sense this whole thing sums up the problem girls like this had in their teens. They could not necessarily due to a poor education and drop out of school argue things well and probably had inconsistencies in their stoires and the people did not believe them. That was obviously awful. We should also cut her some slack here as she is not a lawyer , had a dreadful set of experiences in teenage years and is coping with I am assuming having to have her teenage son put into care.

I am not sure a petition or changes in the law or anything like that is particuarly needed but let people lobby for that if they wish and the more we can remind people of the difficult position working class teenage girls can find themselves in when they drop between the cracks in deprived areas the better and how easily some men will exploit them and how hard it is to get the authorities interested.

I wouldn't say we can go so far as to say it seems like a solicitor failing. It's perfectly possible that the reason they didn't do it is because they weren't allowed to, or had reason to believe it wouldn't work. Neither of those would amount to a solicitor failing.

I think (I do not know) that Sammy is under the impression that because she was handing over her child to care and possibly(?) giving up her PR (really not sure on that, son could still be in care with her keeping PR) that they had to offer the father an opportunity to seek PR and take responsibility for his son before the LA could take over responsibility for the child

In which case though he would not have been given it (hopefully!) he may have been potentially able to nominate that the child was taken into the care of his family while incarcerated and then the family could have made the decision to take the child to visit the father (access)

I think she's said somewhere that her son was initially seduced by the idea of knowing his father so if he's of an age (I believe he is) for his wishes to also be considered there may have been a time it looked possible that would happen

It's obviously hugely complicated by the fact the father is an incarcerated child rapist and hence should really not be legally able to potentially have any say over this child's welfare EVER

Whose failing was it that Sammy was faced with being told at the court hearing that the other respondent would not be appearing and therefore leading her to believe that the council had offered him the chance to 'parental rights' then?

Why is anyone even vaguely surprised?

This is the council who (among others) failed the victims so badly, and powers have been handed back to them on a drip-drip process ever since

Is it really likely they'd now do anything else?

It's the job of the solicitor to talk their client through what will happen in court and that includes explanations about other parties. Social workers aren't meant to discuss much with parents because we aren't allowed to influence or show favouritism, and with parents being used to seeing us as authority figures it's natural for them to ask us questions and ask our opinion (including asking what they should do). And we're really not allowed to influence, however minor.

Since legal aid was cut it's become really difficult because whilst parents get legal aid in care proceedings they only get a small number of hours and I often find that parents can't get hold of solicitors. Even had solicitors refusing to go through my statements or assessments with parents (which they have to give written response to, so they really need the independent legal advice on)

I can't help but wonder if the SW mentioning it in court was because they hadn't realised the parent didn't know - whilst solicitors have their limitations I'd be gobsmacked if their legal rep hadn't discussed something so fundamental at the start of a case. Consideration to who is in the courtroom and when, waiting areas, entrances used etc is a natural part of the initial discussions and is really common.

Whose failing was it that Sammy was faced with being told at the court hearing that the other respondent would not be appearing and therefore leading her to believe that the council had offered him the chance to 'parental rights' then?

I'm responding to you saying that the non-application from the council solicitors seems like a solicitor failing, not your point about her solicitor. We should both perhaps have been a bit clearer on that.

I watched, with horrified fascination, the Home Affairs Select Committee questioning of Joyce Thacker and various senior figures from Rotherham Council. They were the best Rotherham (and by extension local government more generally) had, apparently: paid six figure salaries and, pretty obviously, as thick as mince. They simply parroted cliches about being unable to discuss specific cases, mixed with in Thacker's case a load of woke shite.

If there were social workers in Rotherham more able to think and perhaps even construct sentences, presumably they would have been in charge instead. If there were managers better than a second-rate double-glazing salesman they would have been chief executive. Local government leadership has a talent pool about the depth of a puddle, as witnessed by the fact that the incompetent buffoons in Rotherham soon got jobs elsewhere. It's not the money, as these people are extremely well paid (£160k plus a final salary pension is lot of money in anyone's book, massively more than the vast majority of consultant surgeons, school head teachers or lawyers).

There's no possible reason to believe that Rotherham council has suddenly been infused with the greatest minds of their generation, and every reason to believe that anyone half-way competent has fled the area and probably the field. So you're left with a zombie management, staffed by people who can't for whatever reason get a job elsewhere, making decisions on auto-pilot.

I read another case on the BBC yesterday where a woman had had to spend 50K and work on it pretty much full time for 5 years, to stop he husband who had been convicted of rape, and child sex offences (it wasn't clear whether contact or not) getting access to her kids.

I can't find the link now - she says that the SS were absolutely clear that a relationshp with the father was of paramount importance.

She won in the end and he has to stay away.

I think the law clearly needs overhauling in this area + the secrecy of the family courts needs addressign somehow as terrible stories come out and the SS say well we're not allowed to say anythign but it's all fine trust us...

It sounds like SS have been taking a 'one size fits all' approach to all cases, instead of deciding what to do with each case individually.

If someone had just read each file, in depth and discussed this with child abuse and/or legal advisors, this wouldn't have happened.

Superb post, ReflectentMonatomism. I couldn't have put it better myself, and your description chimes exactly with my own very long experience of LA staff - also with the ethos within most departments

Unfortunately it's only too easy to parrot the usual cries of "savage cuts", when actually the real problems are incompetence and an appalling lack of accountability

Puzzledandpissedoff, are you volunteering to go and do better? Great, there's plenty of jobs going, will look forward to seeing your updates when you've sorted it all out.

@M4J4

Nope not a fan,

What epidemic?

Are you seriously still trying to downplay stuff here, Rotherham isn't alone in this type of case, and just in Rotherham alone:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-rotherham-suspects-victims-girls-rape-uk-nca-prosecutions-a8609511.html?utm_source=reddit.com

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.

I think there is only one agenda at play here trying the no true scotsman falacy, by all intents and purposes that is what they themselves call themselves.

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

Oh, someone with knowledge:

uaf.org.uk/2012/10/400-celebrate-multicultural-rotherham-and-oppose-the-edl/

The EDL’s attempts to spread racist myths about sexual exploitation must be exposed and challenged. They seek to blame one community for society’s problems.

As an ex muslim, you can take your revisionist shit elsewhere