TW / Are convicted rapists allowed to keep their children?

[petitetiti]

A convicted rapist has served his time and is then released. He is on the Sex Offender's Register and has to register with the police etc. What happens if he is in a relationship and has a child with his partner? Does SS remove the child immediately?

Not a lived experience in any way, just curious about what the law says.

Surely if the partner continues in the relationship that is showing terrible judgement that she cannot protect the child?

No idea but would like to think the partner has got out and the Courts and social services are involved in the child's safety

I've heard this argument before. But can a rapist change after 20 years of serving time? I mean, is the child of a rapist in automatic danger? I see both sides but I also would like to believe that offenders may be rehabilitated.

This post is not about anyone. I'm just curious about something I read online.

I imagine it very much depends on the crime and person.

A serial rapist who has previously targeted children and continues problematic/criminal behaviour probably not.

Someone who committed one crime, served their time and rehabilitated maybe yes if they are no danger and their partner is aware of their past.

It wouldn't automatically result in removal - the guidance is very clear that criminals can have children and care for them, and this is the case for many families in the UK.

Depending on their conditions, (eg if on SO register) new partner would be made aware and there would be an assessment about whether the person was a risk to children. If the man had raped an adult, it's much more likely to be a concern around potential domestic abuse, control etc rather than concern about direct threat to the child (remember that the majority of rapes are against someone known to the perpetrator or in the context of some form of relationship/friendship)

Rapists are allowed to live with children. Assuming they're not paedophiles they wouldn't be assessed to be a risk to a child.

If the rapist served twenty years, that was a very violent crime.

do you think people change?

In theory, unless there was a link between the type of victim or situation and the children, rapists have as much right to a family life as anyone else who has served their time.

If a rapist served 20 years they'd have no children under 18 so social services wouldn't do anything.

But yes, a rapist can live with their children where social services have assessed and decided the risk to the children is negligible.

Is he a child molester or was the person he raped over 18? Only asking because i think if it was an adult he raped then hes not seen as a danger to children. I think i read somewhere that a rapist who got a girl pregnant under 16 was able to visit his child when he got out of prison. Was it the rotherham rapists?

The situation would be assessed with regular visits from social services

new partners are informed and situation assessed

and many women will allow their partner to return or allow a new partner who has served prison time for sec offences as they likely to believe they are innocent

and no I do not believe these men ever change

I believe that people can change but I would not stick around if I found out that my partner was a convicted rapist.

The story I read was about a man who committed rape with violence and served 20 years. Then he got out and got a woman pregnant.

Was it consensual when she got pregnant or did he rape her too

Women's Hour had a big interview on this on Wednesday (24th Jan).
Parents convicted of sexual offences against their children don’t automatically lose their parental rights.

Yes, I believe this is correct. As long as the rape wasn’t of a child then the rarest is not seen as a risk to a child. Obviously each case is different and it would be down to of SS thought there was a risk to the child. There are many convicted criminals that have served time that have access to their children because the crime doesn’t put the child at risk.

It was consensual.

Each case would be risk assessed using a specific tool to do this, based on the offence and the person's history and behaviour. Even if no convictions relating to children, they might have a history of domestic abuse which children might witness.
Even in a case where the offence is against children, the full details are shared with the child's parent or guardian by social services and they parent/guardian can decide if they want to take the risk. However if there are concerns in that scenario regarding keeping child safe then they may be eventually faced with the decision to choose between child and partner.

So no. Each case is carefully assessed based on multiple factors and child is not automatically removed

Oh - you're thinking of the case being tried at the moment, of the couple who went on the run and the baby died?

The 20 years jail term in that case was in the US which has different sentencing styles to the U.K. It's not comparable.

I don't understand @ScrambledSmegs why it is not comparable.

I was going to mention the same interview, which was one of the most awful things I'd ever heard.

A father was convicted of raping his own daughter, got out of prison, and the mother had to actively argue against his parental rights and prevent him from seeing the children (who were his actual victims).

(And don't get me started on how, after the two girls told the police what happened, they weren't believed, the mother was accused of emotional abuse and parental alienation, and the daughters were told they'd be removed from her care and sent to live with their father. This only didn't happen after another (unrelated) child came forward).

So I can't imagine a baby born to a convicted rapist would automatically be removed.

The twenty year sentence It isn't comparable to someone sentenced to and serving 20 yrs here, because a home invasion rape in the UK would be unlikely to result in him being sentenced to, let alone serving, 20 years.
Additionally he was tried as an adult when 14/15 yrs old at the time. (15 when tried for 2nd crime)

Also, while I very much doubt it's relevant in this case from what I've read, one should be cautious of different standards of evidence and racial bias in some cases in the USA. They've a much higher proportion of proven miscarriages of justice, especially involving non white defendants. We're far from perfect but dislike convicting on witness ID & circumstantial evidence alone.

The law here would have no interest in him engaging in a consensual sexual relationship and having children. SS might take an interest if he set up with a woman who already had girls in the home, but only if something brought the family to their attention.

In the UK our sentencing is supposedly based on the severity of the crime. This is reflected in the need to declare a prison sentence over three years on a DBS. In some states they have the three strikes rule, no consideration for the age of the offender etc. So you can be sentenced for a long time for 'lesser' crimes.
We'd look at the details. You've asked the question the wrong way around. Our child laws start with the right of a child to have a relationship with their parents. Is the child at risk of significant harm by that relationship? We've had situations of pedophiles being given access because their crimes were on the opposite sex of their child. So, no, being a convicted rapist wouldn't necessarily get your child removed. In the CM/MG case SS had other concerns.

Yes, this. Added to it the fact that MG was tried and sentenced as a juvenile. Not saying that the crime wasn't awful however 20 years is much more than he would have received in the U.K.

Social services had this family on their radar for other reasons.