to think you'd have to be insanely naive to believe paedophiles DON'T target single mothers?

[ZoeCM]

I've seen this several times - not just on MN, but on other parenting sites as well. Poster asks when she should mention to a man she's interested in that she has kids, as she doesn't want to attract paedophiles. The other posters act as though she's some sort of paranoid nutter.

Why the hell wouldn't child abusers seek out single mothers? It's got to be the single easiest way to get access to a child. He dates the mother, asks her to move in after a year or two, and then he's literally living with a child. How many women are going to refuse to leave their child alone in the house with their partner/husband now and then?

There's far less safeguarding involved in moving in with a family than there is working with children. And if a child tells their mother that their teacher/football coach/whoever has abused them, the mother will go straight to the police. If they tell her their stepdad abused them, a lot of women will be torn.

It's well-documented that there are so many people out there who were sexually abused by their stepfathers growing up, so why do people act as though this is an urban legend? Is it guilt/denial about the risks of bringing an unrelated man into your children's home?

Your children aren't at risk from a sex offender simply by him knowing you have kids, it's the next steps where the safeguarding comes in i.e. not introducing them for a long time!

But if he is a sex offender, waiting a long time before introducing him to the kids won't stop him abusing them.

Also no one should make the assumption that a man who moves in and is fine with his 'step' children isn't an issue - years ago I volunteered at a helpline for teenagers, and I was absolutely horrified at the number of calls where teenage girls were being abused (although they didn't see it as abuse) by the stepfather they'd grown up with, or one of his mates. Nothing had happened until the girl hit her mid to late teens, and then I was appalled that these men seemed to see them as fair game. So these weren't paedophiles, but they were sexual abusers in the Woody Allen mould.

But if he is a sex offender, waiting a long time before introducing him to the kids won't stop him abusing them.

No it won't. They play the long game. They are also probably getting their sexually devient kicks from elsewhere at the same time. Which is why they can afford to take their time.

So, you believe that single mothers should never have another relationship because there's always a chance that the new partner is a paedophile? That's not what your OP said.

It's an interesting point of view, but completely different topic to your OP which was about telling potential partners that you have children.

Either way, it's about access to kids not simply knowing that someone has kids.

So, you believe that single mothers should never have another relationship because there's always a chance that the new partner is a paedophile?

Having a relationship with a man is one thing. Moving him into your home and letting him babysit is something else.

But there are a lot less step fathers than fathers out there though.

A quick google tells me that 11% of couples with dependent children are a step family. I guess that is made up of step dads, step mums and families with both. So maybe 8% of families have a step dad in it. (Heroic made up assumptions here.)

Another quick google tell me that 15% of fathers have no contact with their child. So 85% do.

So 8% of kids have step dads and 85% of kids have contact with their dad.

And step dads cause 6% of the abuse and dads 5%.

So assuming that my assumptions are correct (and they come with serious health warnings!) the chance of a particular step dad abusing their step child is roughly 12 times the chance of a particular dad abusing their child.

Can you elaborate on why it is an awful term? It is the term for a particular type of sex offender.

Totally agree.

But that's not what the OP is about. I'm simply responding to the question posed in the OP, which was about telling someone you're interested in dating that you have kids Vs withholding that information for an (unspecified) period of time.

No… but if he knows he is going to be waiting for a year or so to meet them he’s quite likely to move onto someone who will leave him to babysit after 2 weeks.

Absolutely.

But you also have to consider that a much smaller percentage of children have a stepfather than a father so the stepfathers are a much higher relative risk.

But if the mother doesn't mention in her dating profile that she has kids, child molesters will be less likely to pursue her in the first place. So it probably is more effective than waiting a long time to introduce him, which ultimately won't make much difference.

As for the question of whether single mothers should never have another relationship: I think it's generally best not to move a partner into your house until your kids have grown up. I'd say the same to single dads. Blended families are generally a minefield. Single parents can still date, just keep the kids out of it. You don't need to live with someone to have a relationship.

My friend became very close friends with a single man she met. He was lovely and over time she allowed him to meet her kids and he was great with them.
One night he offered to babysit, everything was fine, so a few weeks later he did it again.
Worst mistake ever, her daughter said her wee wee (vagina) was sore because he'd stuck his finger up there.
She reported him to the police but nothing could be proved, and they said her daughter who was four was making it up!!

I agree with your second paragraph.

Would you advise people to never date anyone you know from real life then? Because obviously they'll know you have kids. So single parents should only date online?

And at what point do you think you can safely tell them you have kids?

Thank you, this is the problem with statistics, you need a lot of additional information for them to have real meaning.

I am surprised by the number of women who use photos of themselves with their children for their dating profiles.

But how are they going to guarantee they'll find a woman who lets him babysit after two weeks? He might split up with a woman because she won't leave him alone with the kids yet, date another woman, find that she won't leave him alone with her kids for a while, split up with her... it could go on forever. It's probably easier for him to just stick with the first woman and gain her trust.

Most women wouldn't date someone who admitted to being a peodophile surely?
While I agree that may be most women would date someone like that I am astounded that plenty of women do.
I wouldn't have believed it but I work with young people and I am disgusted that I work with kids whose mother's have left other family members bring their children up (usually by grandparents) because they won't give their boyfriend up. Said boyfriend, being a paedophile. The offences vary from grooming to rape and sexual assault to indecent images but some women still make excuses for them.
My mind is blown every time I get a case like this!

I think there's a difference between someone you happen to meet in a non-dating context, and someone who contacts you with the explicit intention of dating when one of the few things they know about you is that you have kids.

As for how long you should wait: I'd say at least a few dates.

It should make quite a big difference even if you told them on the first date as you have still ruled out all the men who when looking at online profiles are targeting those who are visibly single mothers. That's also a much easier thing to do than to go around targeting single mothers they happen to know - its a much, much bigger pool of women if looking online - so again while clearly not some sort of foolproof absolute, I do think it's safer to date people you happen to know than to advertise yourself as the mother of young children online and then date men who respond to that profile.

I also think that pledges that you won't allow anyone to meet your children for six months or a year or whatever are great in theory but rarely survive contact with reality. It's the sort of thing that sounds a great idea in the abstract but when it's not a theoretical one but a real one the temptation to feel that of course its overkill for this lovely man, who is obviously fine, and with whom you're infatuated, is too high for a lot for people.

He can be fairly sure of it because there are a lot of damaged/naive/vulnerable women in the world (not to mention the ones who share the same proclivities) and these men are extremely good at finding them.

Once they have found them- extremely easy now there is online dating- they are expert groomers of women as well as children.

Also, they don’t have to actually be left to babysit- they just need to get in the house with the child.

Predators are good at identifying easy prey. He's not sticking around for years to groom your kids when there are guaranteed easier targets.

It seems as though your statement is correct @MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned judging by the amount of children who are abused by their mothers boyfriends.

I agree with leaving it off of your profile, but I'd make sure they knew before I met them. I think at that point you're wasting your time for no real safeguarding benefit.