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

[xidol70080]

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?

Not many people think of manslaughter and murder as the same. Not many people think of drink driving and child molestation as anywhere close to being similar.

It must be very hard to live life with such a rigid idea of people and their thoughts. No understanding of nuance or context. You genuinely have my sympathy.

Those are my words because you said :
"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."
Which seems to suggest that you think all crimes should be seen as equal and people should be hounded equally? I was saying that doesn't make sense because the type and nature and context of the crime should be taken into consideration.

*It must be very hard to live life with such a rigid idea of people and their thoughts. No understanding of nuance or context. You genuinely have my sympathy.

I'm using people's own comments against them. Apparently rehabilitation works in the case of the OP but not for other criminals. I do completely see difference but if someone has been punished isn't that enough.

It’s the fact he was so willing to put anyone walking down the road, driving their car, in their garden, even in their house if he ended up crashing into someone’s house, at risk. No thought, no care. It wasn’t long ago. Why would he now have any care for my child? He’s not entitled to forgiveness from anyone.

Which seems to suggest that you think all crimes should be seen as equal and people should be hounded equally? I was saying that doesn't make sense because the type and nature and context of the crime should be taken into consideration.
I have never stated that I've stated that of you believe people are rehabilitated they either are or not.

You don't tell anyone what to think, I can believe in rehabilitation for some crimes and not others.

You don't tell anyone what to think, I can believe in rehabilitation for some crimes and not others.

I pick and choose my own justice well shouldn't others beable to choose which rehabilitation they believe

I would say because the crime he committed was absolutely nothing to do with children so why would it affect your child or his ability to keep them safe? "No thought, no care" is exactly what most joyriding stems from- it's complete lack of understanding of the consequences and feeling like 'it'll never happen to me' - until it does. That's not the same as intentionally setting out to harm someone. In terms of maturity/brain development/emotional maturity we know that 17-21 is a big jump never mind adding in a traumatic and life altering event into that period. He's probably grown up a he'll of a lot more in those 5 years than his peers have in the same period.

Wait, what kid?

I had assumed (and yes I know that's never wise) that the OP's partner got into a car, drunk, with his best mate who was a similar age.

So no 'kid' - if the OP's partner is an adult then so was his best friend.

There is a world of difference between two young people, drunk (or at least passenger knows the driver is drunk) getting into a stolen car, crashing it and one of them dying...

And one person getting into a stolen car, drunk and crashing it into an innocent small child bystander...

I do doubt the latter scenario would have recieved such a short sentence!

Maybe the OP can clarify if her partners best friend was the same age and knew he was drunk?

He's probably grown up a he'll of a lot more in those 5 years than his peers have in the same period.

Oh he's better than his peers now who have got jobs and are productive members of society.

Yes, but we know that certain crimes are much much harder to rehabilitate for a whole load of reasons. Which is why some people are released sooner into the community than others and with different conditions etc. Rehabilitation is something that needs to be tailored to suit the crime that's just fact. I see no reason why a 17 year old who's accidentally killed their friend in a car crash shouldn't be rehabilitated whereas a serial sexual offender is a completely different kettle of fish to firstly work with on any level and secondly to rehabilitate because of the levels of sociopathy and anti-social mature of the crime etc. I'm not quite sure I understand your point if I'm honest? Sorry if I'm missing it!

My point is Mumsnet excuses certain crimes but not others. Even if they result in death, but if you have been rehabilitated from one you are okay.

People are either rehabilitated or not.

I don't support either by the way I'm proving a point that Mumsnet posters are hypocrites

My point is it depends on the crime and the circumstances.

Slowly torturing a child to death over weeks/months is far worse that a stupid reckless decision whilst under the influence.

The former cannot be rehabilitated because they're evil, the latter was reckless.

I know plenty of people who will drive after a heavy night out the night before, who speed/ use their phones while driving etc. This guy doesn't drive or touch drink- so we know he's definitely safer on the roads than his peers as a direct result of this experience, yes. The idea of 'better than' doesn't come into it. I don't think any one person is better than anyone else. But in terms of maturity (which is what I said in my post which you quoted) I'd say he had to grow up a lot faster than his peers yes. Traumatic life events will do that. And since he is working and has got his qualifications during that time and is an involved dad, I'm not sure what you feel he's missing? He's clearly worked hard to catch up with the other productive members of society his age.

It was to do with everyone. He could have killed one of us, a newborn baby, a student or an elderly person. He didn’t care about anyone. I don’t have to risk my children around people who gave no care for others. If that upsets them, tough. Not my problem.

I still don't see what's hypocritical about recognising that some crimes are worse than others though? And that some criminals are more successfully rehabilitated than others and this often relates to the nature of the crime they committed? Surely context is everything?

He's not a risk to children. He neither drinks not drives now. What he has done is quite horrific and people will no doubt judge him and you. However many people have committed driving offences. How many of us have driven drunk, used a mobile, broken the speed limit etc. Probably 80% if not more. There but for the grace of God. I don't think you should tell anyone. However do consider how it will be if they find out.

I know a teenage drunk driver who is now an adult and have no problem with my children being around him. He did a terrible thing, he regrets it massively.

Also, I unfortunately know a pedophile- when I found out his past I blocked him, reported him to the relevant authorities and will never have anything to do with him again.

Its really straightforward.

He's not a risk to children. He neither drinks not drives now. What he has done is quite horrific and people will no doubt judge him and you. However many people have committed driving offences. How many of us have driven drunk, used a mobile, broken the speed limit etc. Probably 80% if not more. There but for the grace of God. I don't think you should tell anyone. However do consider how it will be if they find out

Why other people have done is irrelevant they didn't kill someone whilst doing it so stop minimising. And btw I've not done any oh that, if you have low standards that's on you.

We also have only the Ops accounts to say he isn't drinking.

It's interesting to me because a load of people who work with young people were up to exactly this at that age. And are now safeguarding approved really skilled Youth workers trying to redirect other young people from making the same mistakes they did at that age. It's just funny to me that you think they'd be a risk to your children when there's actually nothing here that would rule someone out from working with your child in any other setting where his background would be declared to an employer. And you're right, he didn't care about anyone- past tense. That doesn't mean he stays the same non caring 17 year old for the rest of his life?

@Cw112 he would be under supervision until he had proved himself competent and suitable for the job. Childcare workers have to be qualified.

If someone had come out of prison and then spent 2/3 years qualifying for a job it shows genuine sustained turnaround and evidence of having changed.

We also have only the Ops accounts to say he isn't drinking. what a pointless observation. We only have OPs account that it was an accident, that it was drink not drugs, that he was 17 not 27, that it was one person not 5, that he only did a few years not 10, that it was a friend not his mother, that he's not drinking or driving, that he doesn't beat her every night, that he doesn't beat DD every morning. Literally the whole of MN is built on the premise of the op being honest. Otherwise why would you trust ANYTHING she said. Maybe it's her who had the accident!!

You are absolutely right, my point is just that the crime alone isn't one that would be considered a safeguarding issue regarding children. He has spent his time getting qualified for jobs as op has said we just don't know in what field. So I don't think it's fair to say he could never be suitable or safe to be around children due to having this particular conviction.

No one said better. But a 21 yo who's not had to go through the trauma of killing his best friend and being locked away from his family, partner and baby does have the luxury to be less mature than one who has.

And ops partner has a job and is a productive member of society.

I don’t care. There are certain things people do that I choose to not forgive people for. We have no contact with 2 family members that have drunk drove, my FIL and BIL. One has been convicted twice and has apparently now stopped, one had never been caught. We don’t want them around our kids or us. Unsurprisingly, they make shit decisions on other areas of their life too.