Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think DD’s friends parents don't need to know about DP’s past? *potential TW?*

636 replies

xidol70080 · 12/11/2022 22:12

I'm pretty sure I posted about DP before when he was first released from prison and MN was helpful then but I've since deleted that account so I can't find the thread, some of you may remember.

Some background. I was with DDs dad (now 4) for a few months at 16, I then found out I was pregnant and we stayed together. On his 17th birthday, he was drunk and stole his dads car and crashed, his best friend sadly died and he was sent to prison. I split up with him as I was very angry and upset. He was released from prison in late 2020 (when I posted on here) and I took DD to see him, he was very remorseful and told me he wanted to be in DD’s life. I moved in with him and his dad in at the start of lockdown so DD could build a relationship with her dad and so I could get some support as I don't see my own family.

Me and him got back together in March 2021, me and DD stayed living with him and his dad, he got a job and everything relationship wise has been good. Me, him and DD moved into our own house this summer (we were saving whilst living at his dads).

DD started reception in September and has had a few playdates, one of my friends has never been happy with DD having contact with DP let alone us getting back together, so we don't talk much but this evening she messaged and asked how DD is getting on at school, has she made friends etc so I told her she has. She then asked if I mentioned DP’s past to her friends’ parents, I said no and she has said if she had a child, she'd want to know so she could judge whether to allow her child around him. Some of the parents have met him and have made their judgements without knowing.

AIBU in thinking they don't need to know something that happened when DP was still legally classed as a child, he's now 21, and it's been 5 years since it happened. Or if you were her friends parents would you want to know?

OP posts:
Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 13:08

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 12:56

Of all these calling the friend a busybody and other people names on this thread for not wanting drunk drivers near their kids would be so forgiving if it was their child who had been killed in the car or their child or partner who could have been killed just walking along a pavement and hit by these idiots.

I doubt they would forgive the same as they are preaching on here.

The friend is a busybody, it's not her circus nor her monkeys!

If she feels that strongly, she should end the friendship.

She doesn't get to dictate the OPs decisions.

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 13:17

The friend is a busybody, it's not her circus nor her monkeys!

When someone is a drunk driving idiot killer, most of time it is public record so yes it is everyone's business.

Cw112 · 14/11/2022 13:21

"The killing was an accident but the series of behaviors which led up to it were choices. Taking genuine responsibility for having made those choices should mean accepting the consequences."

Taking genuine responsibility and accepting the consequences such as pleading guilty, serving time and feeling genuinely remorseful you mean? Because they did that? How many more consequences do you want to see imposed? Bearing in mind that judgement and stigma from society is one of the key reasons why people reoffend. What exactly do you suggest?

frozengoose · 14/11/2022 13:34

I would suggest understanding that the some parents of your dc's friends are not going to see you as a suitable carer for their dc is natural consequence.

Others as this thread shows are not going to be bothered.

Trying to hide the past from your own dc and others doesn't really seem to be the actions of true acceptance of responsibility.

It isn't about artificially imposing consequences so much as them naturally flowing from past actions.

Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 13:43

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 13:17

The friend is a busybody, it's not her circus nor her monkeys!

When someone is a drunk driving idiot killer, most of time it is public record so yes it is everyone's business.

But in this case it wasn't.... he was too young for his name to be mentioned.

ShouldIdo · 14/11/2022 13:58

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 13:17

The friend is a busybody, it's not her circus nor her monkeys!

When someone is a drunk driving idiot killer, most of time it is public record so yes it is everyone's business.

It's not everyone's business, due to his age he was not named, they do that for a reason......

Cw112 · 14/11/2022 17:54

frozengoose · 14/11/2022 13:34

I would suggest understanding that the some parents of your dc's friends are not going to see you as a suitable carer for their dc is natural consequence.

Others as this thread shows are not going to be bothered.

Trying to hide the past from your own dc and others doesn't really seem to be the actions of true acceptance of responsibility.

It isn't about artificially imposing consequences so much as them naturally flowing from past actions.

Surely there is a difference in hiding the past from a 4 year old and waiting until they are old enough to understand and process the information? I wouldn't think that's age appropriate information to be giving a 4 year old in the first place. So fully support ops choice there.

frozengoose · 14/11/2022 18:49

I don't think that dd needs all the facts, but it is usually accepted that small amounts of age appropriate information is more helpful with big issues rather than delay.

It is then less of a big thing in the future. Small amounts of age appropriate information mean that secrets aren't kept from her and she isn't expected to keep them from others.

It can be really damaging to have these huge life events hidden particularly when quite a lot of people are aware of them.

Dd isn't going to be able to fully understand what has happened until she is adult.

Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 19:01

frozengoose · 14/11/2022 18:49

I don't think that dd needs all the facts, but it is usually accepted that small amounts of age appropriate information is more helpful with big issues rather than delay.

It is then less of a big thing in the future. Small amounts of age appropriate information mean that secrets aren't kept from her and she isn't expected to keep them from others.

It can be really damaging to have these huge life events hidden particularly when quite a lot of people are aware of them.

Dd isn't going to be able to fully understand what has happened until she is adult.

She's 4... nothing needed currently!

HelensToenail · 14/11/2022 19:08

I'm not at all sure about that - it would only require one of DDs schoolmates to say something like ''My mummy says I'm not allowed to play with you because your daddy killed someone''

DD needs to hear a version from her parents sooner rather than later if OP starts to inform school mates parents

NewtoHolland · 14/11/2022 19:14

It is really really sad what happened but I'm sure your DH had no intention for his friend to die he took a risk and it turned out to have absolutely devastating effects.

I work with people in recovery and many have offences under their belts but also are amazing humans who are trying their absolute best to somehow make ammends to the universe for their past lives. I don't feel it's something you or he need to disclose and I think your friend is being very unpleasant.

NewtoHolland · 14/11/2022 19:15

I would distance myself from your friend.

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:33

It is really really sad what happened but I'm sure your DH had no intention for his friend to die he took a risk and it turned out to have absolutely devastating effects.

The problem is his friend who got in car with him died, fair enough, but he could have hit bystanders or pedestrians.

He had intent to drive a car like this.

IhearyouClemFandango · 14/11/2022 19:39

He was a drink driver, not a child abuser.

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:43

He was a drink driver, not a child abuser.

But judging by many people's logic on here, if he was a child abuser if he had served his time it's okay. Nope that's where all these people fall down.

SkylightSkylight · 14/11/2022 19:48

butterfliedtwo · 13/11/2022 00:11

By this logic all drunk drivers should be excused. They don't purposely kill people.

Doesn't matter though, does it? Their victims are still dead.

Show quote history

@butterfliedtwo

Who said excused?

He was sentenced, he served his time.

o have never seen sentencing that requires you to inform everyone you meet that you have been to prison.

Cw112 · 14/11/2022 19:51

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:43

He was a drink driver, not a child abuser.

But judging by many people's logic on here, if he was a child abuser if he had served his time it's okay. Nope that's where all these people fall down.

Those are incredibly different scenarios. Abuse is intentional. Someone intentionally abuses a child in the full knowledge and understanding of the long term effects and consequences it will have on that child. Child abusers and paedophile are extremely likely to reoffend and rehabilitation has shown to be quite ineffective in such cases.

Joyriding and drink driving on the other hand was the bit that was intentional in this crime, the driver did not intend to kill someone he loved or anyone else for that matter. They did not fully understand the consequences to their actions or they wouldn't have been in the car would they? Reoffending rates for joyrider who have served prison time and who have lived through severe trauma as a result are much much lower. So these two things are really not comparable.

Also one speaks directly to someone's safety around children and the other doesn't involve children in any way.

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:52

But many on here are stating people should be forgiven and not be hounded for crimes, it seems it is when it's only certain sort of Crimes.

Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 19:56

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:52

But many on here are stating people should be forgiven and not be hounded for crimes, it seems it is when it's only certain sort of Crimes.

Yep this is 100% true!

Loads of people have stated it changes for pedophiles, are you honestly saying you don't think a drink driver can ever stop? It's a wrong choice and they learn?

Whereas a pedophile has a sexually deviant nature?

You think they're the same, really?

Cw112 · 14/11/2022 19:59

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 19:52

But many on here are stating people should be forgiven and not be hounded for crimes, it seems it is when it's only certain sort of Crimes.

Surely type of crime matters? Huge difference between manslaughter (which this is) and premeditated murder? Huge difference in shoplifting and child abuse? Of course the nature of the crime matters as does the intent behind it and the way the offender is rehabilitated/ feels remorse which as op has shown her partner does. Do you not believe that if someone is genuinely remorseful, has accepted responsibility, held themselves accountable and has done what they needed to try to be a better person going forward that that person should never have any chance at forgiveness regardless of what their crime was?

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 20:01

*Whereas a pedophile has a sexually deviant nature?

You think they're the same, really?*

It's irrelevant there is many posts saying don't tell people of past crimes and people need second chances and the courts but it seems it depends on crime.

I completely see the difference I'm using posters own words against them, well surely this sex abuser is rehabilitated, however the posters on here need to think about justification for one sort of crime but not another.

Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 20:03

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 20:01

*Whereas a pedophile has a sexually deviant nature?

You think they're the same, really?*

It's irrelevant there is many posts saying don't tell people of past crimes and people need second chances and the courts but it seems it depends on crime.

I completely see the difference I'm using posters own words against them, well surely this sex abuser is rehabilitated, however the posters on here need to think about justification for one sort of crime but not another.

No they don't, it's really obvious!

Because they don't write war and peace, doesn't mean they think all crime is the same.

They're referring to a young male, drink driving.

They are saying that he should rehabilitate!

They don't have to go on to say, that this doesn't refer to Fred and Rose West etc.

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 20:04

Do you not believe that if someone is genuinely remorseful, has accepted responsibility, held themselves accountable and has done what they needed to try to be a better person going forward that that person should never have any chance at forgiveness regardless of what their crime was?

Regardless what crime is that's your words not mine. So what is it

Conkersareback · 14/11/2022 20:07

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 20:04

Do you not believe that if someone is genuinely remorseful, has accepted responsibility, held themselves accountable and has done what they needed to try to be a better person going forward that that person should never have any chance at forgiveness regardless of what their crime was?

Regardless what crime is that's your words not mine. So what is it

Not my words.....

Againstmachine · 14/11/2022 20:08

As always said these posters would change tune of it was child who was killed.

Swipe left for the next trending thread