Claire’s Law/ Sarah’s Law for FIL

[Red0]

My FIL has always been very quiet and even after 20 years I’ve barely had a conversation with him despite being in his company quite a lot. He comes across as introverted and shy. I always only saw him that way until I had kids and it started to make me a bit more uncomfortable when he would sit his GC on his lap and talk to them very quietly so others couldn’t hear, or try to take them into a separate room and you couldn’t hear what was going on in there. Although around the time of the birth of my first DC I found when using his computer that he’d been watching porn - nothing nefarious, but still I was quite shocked that this quiet older man secretly watches porn - each to their own I guess. Maybe my judgement of his behaviour has been clouded by this discovery. But from then my DC have never been alone with him.

I have recently found out that he was arrested (all I know about when this was is “when he was younger”) for apparently urinating in public. I don’t know if that is something one would be arrested for decades ago. I’m shocked I’ve not heard about it before and it all seems a bit shady the way it was being spoken about, and not “Oh Bob got arrested when he was younger for peeing in a bush, what’s he like!” I don’t know how to describe it, but as if there was more to it. DH says he was told about this but had almost forgotten about it until this recent conversation came up. I asked MIL what the charge was actually called and she said “I don’t know, indecent exposure or something like that” and then shut down anything further I tried to say on the matter.
WIBU of me to try and find out what he was actually arrested for? I don’t even know if I could, but would I be able to make a Claire’s Law or Sarah’s Law for something like this? My DC don’t spend time alone with them, but need to stay at my SILs soon while DH and I attend a funeral and SIL said she needs to go to an appointment so her parents (my ILs) will need to watch the kids for a couple of hours. I’m not overly worried, but this has crossed my mind to do. AIBU?

You have children and you obviously have some concerns.
For your own peace of mind go ahead and request the information.

Are you suggesting the OP lies to the police by saying her FIL has been convicted of a sexual offence? Because he hasn’t that she knows of. Being arrested for something is very different to being charged/convicted.

You don't get prosecuted for "indecent exposure" (it's not technically called that anyway in law) because of public urination. It's only a crime to expose oneself if there is intent to cause alarm or distress, and only a sexual offence if it's done for sexual gratification. Public urination is disgusting, but not usually done for a sexual thrill.

If he was prosecuted it was for a sexual offence, so you should definitely be wary and contact the police to see what advice they can give.

His porn-habit is a side issue and irrelevant given that you found nothing out of the ordinary.

I assume you know his DOB so that will help with the information request?
You can probably look him up on Free BMD which will give middle names (I just looked up my dad - it only gives middle initial but even that might help).

I know his DOB but he doesn’t have a middle name. What info could I get from Free BMD please?

My mistake, didn’t clock that it said arrested for and not convicted. Either way though the op should absolutely contact the police and say she is concerned fil may have committed a historic sexual offence and she requires information to safeguard her children. If we only safeguarded children from people who’ve been convicted of sexual offences, or other offences for that matter, that would be a massive failure, given how many people aren’t convicted despite strong evidence. This is the reason why in family court they work on the balance of probability.

If it turned out to be nothing (genuinely needing a wee and just getting caught), would that put your mind at ease? I think it’s the general behaviour that is the concern as well as a possible offence.

I know you say he has a common name and moved a lot but it's worth trying the Internet and also the website find my past has a massive newspaper article. I found a relative being taken to court for csa, the charges were dropped but it's still made me very cautious

If you have DOB and full name, you could get place of birth (but this might not help) and possibly mother's maiden name (fairly likely as my dad's in his 80s and it's there) but not much else.

I think the porn stuff is a red herring as legal porn is just that, some people may be a bit different to what you find a turn on but nonetheless it's completely different.
I wouldn't like the behaviour with the children though so I may well do Sarah's law in your situation

Don’t second guess yourself. If there is nothing to know I think none of your family would ever find out you tried to research his background and no harm done.
go to the police, even if nothing comes of it, trust your instincts

I don’t know about back then but these days you would be fined for urinating in public. It’s not indecent exposure unless the intent is to be seen and it reasonably causes “alarm and distress” (legal wording). So if a bloke is peeing behind a bin and you happen to walk past and catch a glimpse, that’s not indecent exposure, although it is potentially a public order offence. In the PP where the man deliberately urinated in front of two children, that would absolutely be indecent exposure. So if he actually was arrested for that, it suggests he did something very deliberate and serious.

@Red0 if he is trying to sit GC on his knee and talk quietly to them and take them into other rooms whilst parents are there, what might he do if only your (minimising) MIL is there? Please make safe alternative arrangements for your kids whilst you’re at the funeral. A minute’s harm can cause a lifetime of distress and mistrust.

I was relying to the OP who said 'even if it's just flashing'

The intent is to cause alarm and distress.

Not quite true. It’s an offence if you intend to be seen (or could reasonably expect to be seen) and it could reasonably cause alarm/distress to see you. This is what got the naked rambler into so much trouble, despite nudism not being an offence and his insistence he wasn’t out to upset anyone. He intended to be seen and he should have expected that people might not want to see him.

It’s could all be innocent but if I were having these thoughts I wouldn’t risk leaving my children with him. The part of your post that stood out to me was the taking them into separate rooms and whispering things in their ear - Again could be nothing, my Grandad used to sneak me away from everyone else and give me bags of sweets before dinner. Nothing sinister and it’s a sweet memory but we have a gut instinct for a reason- it’s not worth the risk.

Just do the Sarah’s law. They won’t tell you his offending history if not relevant but they will tell you if he poses a risk to your child. If it was me though I’d trust my gut and just never leave you child with him alone.

A friend got caught short walking home after closing time and was fined for discreetly peeing in a bush, out of sight of passers by. I don’t know what the charge was but I was there, I can confirm he was definitely just peeing in a bush, not flashing. This was about 10 years ago.

you can do it online, fill out as much as you know, if they need more they will contact you

https://www.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law/triage/v2/ask-police-for-information-child-sexual-offences/

I agree with the above. I wouldn't risk it.

Yes, absolutely this

If he was out of sight, how did he get caught?

Flashing is a gateway offence. And it’s constantly minimised.

I think the question to ask is: if you did every check possible and everything came back fine, would that set your mind at rest? Or would you still be suspicious and keep your DC at arms length with him?

Because that will really tell you a lot.

I was a former London met police officer being interviewed recently. By his estimation there is a person with a sexual interest in children in every 4 households in his work area. His actual role was categorising sexual offences. It was an extremely sobering watch. From watching this and my own life experience I have concluded that people vastly underestimate the degree to which men have a sexual interest in children and the risk which men pose to children. If I have even a twinge of suspicion I listen to it now.

Aside from the other concerns definitely in the 1980s men were arrested for weeing in public. As a teenager at the time I was walking home after a night out with a group of friends in a small town and two of the males went off the main street down a side alley and had a wee as two police men walked past. They were arrested.