AIBU to not give him my blessing?

[Oscarsmom]

My dad was arrested and cautioned for accessing illegal porn. My mum died around the same time (6 years ago)

He has now met a woman he wants to start a relationship with. He says that he isn't going to tell her.

He has never been a physical threat, and has undergone counselling for what he refers to as his addiction.

We have all been through hell with this. We had to wait 2 years while the police got around to cautioning him - during that time, he wasn't allowed to discuss the nature of what he had been looking at, so our imaginations were running riot. They found 9 Category C images on his laptop.

We are only just starting to piece things back together. I've been suffering with severe anxiety and panic attacks throughout it all.

He is 79, and I understand he wants companionship but think it would be immoral and dishonest of him to not tell this woman, as I would want to know.

I'm interested to hear what other people think. AIBU to not give him my blessing?

Is he on the sex offenders register OP?

She needs to know. If she has grandchildren she needs to have all this information to make an informed decision about the future of their relationship.

If she finds out later that this has been hidden from her this wont go down well. If I found out this myself I'd be absolutely furious.

The level of minimising possession of child abuse images on this thread is staggering. How many is a man allowed to store before it becomes a big deal to people? 20? 50? 100?

No-one should be hiding having had an addiction to child abuse images from their partner.

And if the OP was posting to say that she'd discovered her MIL's partner had been convicted and everyone had kept it hidden from her the responses would be so different.

@Oscarsmom You are spot on to not give him your blessing to hide this from his new partner. It is, as you say, immoral and dishonest to hide it from her

@Soubriquet

Isn’t category C usually child sex abuse?

With A being the worst?

Not necessarily involving children.

www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/how-indecent-images-are-graded-in-criminal-courts/

illegal porn !!! you need to use the correct term , and he,s not an actual physical threat ?
I think your bigger problem is keeping him in your life , and yes she should be told .

I’m a bit confused. I thought the categories related to all types of indecent imagery, not just those involving children? Is that the case, or have I misread it and can any legal bods clarify this?

@2bazookas

GF "It's difficult to know what the images really were or how exactly your father was using them from what you've said. Images of that type aren't necessarily pornographic in the normal sense, so people assuming they involved child abuse are, in fact, assuming."

  They were  illegal indecent pictures of children, Category C.  He  accepted a police caution for that offence,   which means he  formally admitted  his guilt. 

He had "counselling for his addiction" (which implies , it was a condition of the Caution.)

He has told the family only 9 images were found on his computer, yet he also calls his offence an addiction . That giveaway word indicates a much more established fixation or obsession with indecent pictures of children, than 9 images.

Images of that kind don't have to be overtly pornographic, and we don't know if they were simply mixed in with a lot of other, legal, pornographic images, or if the images appeared to be of young adults but in fact they were under age, or what. I His addiction might have been to porn more generally.

The information the OP gave is very general, and I'm guessing that's because what she knows is very general. Which would be worrying in itself for the OP and may be a big part of why she is unsure of what is best to do, but posters are making a lot of assumptions in their answers. There is a huge difference between having some images of teens who are a year or two underage and indistinguishable from the other 300 on your computer, and something more targeted.

Surely part of his conditions would be to tell someone he was in a relationship with? That might only be if he is on the sexual offenders register and might only be for the length hes on there for.

@LokiDoki75

I’m a bit confused. I thought the categories related to all types of indecent imagery, not just those involving children? Is that the case, or have I misread it and can any legal bods clarify this?

I think it applies to children or animals. In the latter case I believe that generally has animals with people.

OP, I'll fly in the face of the pitchfork wavers on the thread who because they lack the critical thinking to differentiate between a grooming/ abuse offence and this,

In almost all child abuse images a child has been sexually abused to provide the images. They grow up knowing those images are in the internet and always will be. Viewing these images creates a market for them, leading to more children being abused.

Because again, they don't consider there is any risk to that child or children of a contact offence.
I wouldn't say that they thought there was no risk. It is more that it is impossible to legally enforce no contact without a high threshold of proof of harm or likely proof of harm.
I don't know any SW's who would allow their dc to hang out with someone convicted of viewing child sex abuse images. I certainly wouldn't.

If this woman has contact with dc then she should be told.

He has never been a physical threat

He most certainly has. Tehh her yourself.

The Crown Prosecution Service describes prohibited images as the ‘indecent photography of children’, but indecent images can also involve animals. The prohibitions on indecent images include moving images, animations, video photography and ‘pseudo-photography’.

If the images are of animals rather than children then there would be a different set of concerns.

Does this 'illegal porn' involve either children or animals? If so, since they are not able to give consent, it is abuse. And anyone who views it is responsible for the abuse, because it is carried out to order.

@lakesidesummer

OP, I'll fly in the face of the pitchfork wavers on the thread who because they lack the critical thinking to differentiate between a grooming/ abuse offence and this,

In almost all child abuse images a child has been sexually abused to provide the images. They grow up knowing those images are in the internet and always will be. Viewing these images creates a market for them, leading to more children being abused.

Because again, they don't consider there is any risk to that child or children of a contact offence.
I wouldn't say that they thought there was no risk. It is more that it is impossible to legally enforce no contact without a high threshold of proof of harm or likely proof of harm.
I don't know any SW's who would allow their dc to hang out with someone convicted of viewing child sex abuse images. I certainly wouldn't.

If this woman has contact with dc then she should be told.

He's not been convicted. He's been cautioned. There's a difference.

That's not been my experience with respect to social workers but we'll agree to differ.

Tell her. Give her the details of Stop It Now! in case she has questions / wants to reach out.

get-help.stopitnow.org.uk/family-and-friends/family-and-friends-forum

I’m assuming this is child sex abuse images that you’re referring to. If so then I would absolutely tell his new partner. If she has children in the family she deserves to know the risk he might pose. I wouldn’t think twice about this.

@FatCatThinCat

Are you recategorising images of child abuse as 'illegal porn'? For that YABU.

This entirely.

He's not been convicted. He's been cautioned. There's a difference.

But he has accepted the caution I am assuming?

It is certainly true that not every viewer of child sex abuse images will sexually abuse a child physically themselves, so they are seen as lower risk of this than people with a history of sexually abusing children.

If however you are sexually interested in children and collect and view indecent pictures of them you pose a higher risk to children than people with no sexual interest in children.

Illegal porn? As in child pornography?

If it is you're minimising what he did and there could possibly be things that he's done that you don't know about. He is a threat and this woman does need to know.

What if she has GC and leaves them with him? If I then found out about his history I would be furious I wasn't told. She also needs to have the opportunity to decide whether she wants to be with a man like him. I wouldn't want to be with a man that's viewed pictures of children like that.

You can't be cautioned unless you accept a caution :)

Possessing 9 Category C images does not automatically equate to having a sexual interest in children. I suspect he has, or had, an interest in porn, and in viewing this also whether carelessly or recklessly viewed images of CSA. But again, 9 images. An offender who has actively visited a site seeking images of CSA, and who clearly DOES have an interest in children, will normally have thousands of the same.

@njf33

Question: If the OP's dad had been cautioned for a minor violent offence, public order offence or a road traffic matter (maybe drink driving, although a caution would be pretty unlikely there) would you all still be so adamant that this lady must be told?

I'll lay odds you wouldn't.

But isn't there the same risk he might reoffend, or do worse whatever the offence? Or do you think that if it's driving or public order or assault or even theft that he might NOT do it again....

so why is this specific offence different to any of those?

My reason for feeling difference about the other offences you mentioned is because reoffending or increasing severity of offendinG related to those offences would be more obvious. If I was a partner to someone being more violent or drunk driving that would be more apparent than if I was a partner to some One accessing child sex abuse images or grooming children.

Sexual abuse generally involve more manipulation and is more hidden than the offences you mention.

I mean I guess that’s maybe the reason they have a register for sex offenders but not for other offences.

If the images were bad enough for the Police to charge him she needs to know. End of.

@amusedbush

What is "illegal porn"? Do you mean images of child abuse?

If so, I would not be minimising this - I wouldn't have any sort of relationship with him at all.

^ This. You are minimising his behaviour.

@njf33 The point isn't whether or not he's likely to re-offend, the point is pretty much no woman ever would want to start a relationship with someone who got off on kiddie porn, no matter how mild.

I'd hit the roof if I found out people knew about someone I was seeing and didn't tell me.

Frankly I'm amazed OP wants anything to do with him at all.

@njf33

OP, I'll fly in the face of the pitchfork wavers on the thread who because they lack the critical thinking to differentiate between a grooming/ abuse offence and this, will tell you he should be in prison and you are complicit, etc. Please ignore that hyperbole.

As to your dad, I think let him deal with it as he sees fit. He was cautioned by the police, that's an indication of how they and the CPS viewed the level of offending. It was 6 years ago at a time when he had just lost your mum (presumably after a marriage of 30-40 years or more). The number of images suggests more of an accidental than a deliberate seeking out (I have some knowledge of these type of offences in a professional capacity and it's very unusual for the offender not to have hundreds or even thousands of images on their computer after just viewing a few pages). I'll await someone piping up that I'm minimising. I'm not. He's accepted the caution, sought help - he's done everything that could be expected of him.

I actually think that the lady may understand if he explained it carefully and in context. However it is understandable that he would be fearful of an adverse reaction or being branded a 'paedo'...at his time of life just let him be happy. He's clearly not a threat to anyone (and again, if the police thought he was, if there was anything aggravated about the offence, he would have been prosecuted and given a SHPO/ put on the register. He wasn't).

Her father said it was an addiction. That doesn’t sound accidental or a one off.