To wonder why people don’t use the safety tools available when blending a family?

[lunar1]

I just can’t understand in this day and age why anyone would bring an unrelated adult into their children’s home without doing clairs/sarah’s law checks?

none of us think someone we love could harm us or our children, but it happens on a daily basis. Isn’t it just due diligence these days? No they won’t catch everyone, but they will catch some.

its a shame it’s not compulsory before bringing a random adult into children’s home.

Maybe this OP is aimed at Katie Price?

Yet men you're related to or you know well are statistically more likely to abuse your kids than 'randoms'. If you're saying single mums then what about single dads and their male mates who are all 'randoms' also?

And I don't know anyone who does Clare's law on every single male that meet their kids including every man in their own family and the plumber and the lollypop man.

There is no way I would consider my father, uncle, brother or cousin, more of a risk to my DC than some random bloke I’ve just met. I grew up with these men. My dad bathed my DB and I when we were small. My cousins loved my late uncle and trusted him with their DC. I find it hard to believe that men who posed no threat to their own DC would be a threat to their DGC. The women I know who were abused by a child were abused by mothers‘ partners or in one case, decades ago, by a very creepy uncle who there were suspicions of.

So yes, I agree with OP. New partners should be checked out. The recent BBC reported case of how experts identified a child sex offender who was filming the abuse involved the mothers boyfriend who was a known offender.

Surely being with someone for 7 years will tell you infinitey more than a check that will come back fine if no-one has reported the guy?

My ex husband was very abusive during our marriage, and he was found not guilty to most offences because he pled guilty to a very minor offence so his would come back fine, despite him being an abusive arsehole.

There's no way he could have hid who he was for such a long period of time.

Then surely you should check out your brothers, father and any other male relatives that your kids spend time with? And female family members too, female peadophiles exist they are just less likely to be reported.

I get where you are coming from and to be honest I agree completely. But it does open up the question why you would get a partner checked and not your own family. Most abuse happens within families after all.

You're correct. But so many people on here seem to suggest it as some sort of routine check when you meet a new partner.

I agree that women should use them as standard, especially before bringing a new man into their child’s life.

However I do think people overestimate how useful they are and rely on them too heavily. They will come back clear unless someone else has reported them. Just because someone hasn’t been reported, it does not automatically mean they are safe. Think about all those men in jobs where DBS checks are done who are later found to be rapists/abusers.

Are you married? Living with a partner? Did you do this?

This is so true. In my teaching career I witnessed altogether 3 members of staff who were struck off ( 1 did 5 years in prison) due to sexual contact with children. Also a supply teacher too so that makes 4 I got to know about. All the same school. All had clear DBS checks annually.

Self centred you say. Or maybe I’m just tired of how single parents are viewed as irresponsible with a revolving door of men in and out. It’s quite the dull and oft used stereotype. Objecting to it doesn’t make me self centred surely.
For what it’s worth, I’m no longer a single parent. I met my absolutely amazing partner when my daughter was at Junior school and he’s made an incredible step father. She adores him now even as an adult.
Maybe I struck lucky. Or maybe I took my time to get to know him, trust him, and find out about him. If I hadn’t trusted him enough to have him move in without checking his criminal record, I wouldn’t have been at the stage where I was getting to considering him moving in.
Maybe I’m self centred or maybe I was a single parent who didn’t fit the tired and lazy stereotype and don’t like it when people apply them whatever they are. In which case I’m free to respond on a forum.

For the same reason most people don’t do do these checks on people they are dating when they don’t have children.

It is self centred to dismiss a discussion around this because you didnt do it and dont like the trope, yes- further proven by your need to outline your relationship. There are women who do, and whilst i dont think these checks tell the full story, time and time again following a horrific event it turns out they have a violent hisrory, so whats the harm?

Also to those on this thread incorrectly stating bio family are more likely to abuse, its adults known to the child which includes...you guessed it!

But why are you trying to close people down who are talking about the single parents who do fit the stereotype?

Just because you don't, that doesn't mean there are plenty who do.

Do you have children? Have you run these checks on their father, as I’m not sure why they wouldn’t pose a risk. How about other family members? Has anyone run checks on you to ensure you don’t have a history that means you’re a risk to them?

That's a poor argument. Lots of fathers / family members turn out to be predators who didnt have a criminal history prior to being caught.

And presumably, she wasn't a single woman with vulnerable children when she met the father of her children?

And, if someone's father / family member did end up being a predator, half of the time, the mother isn't to blame. If it was a boyfriend who wasn't related and she quickly moved him in, she kind of is to blame because what was she thinking?

Step dads can also turn out to be predators without previous convictions. If you’re saying that women can’t be trusted to decide who is appropriate to have around their children, I’m not sure why that judgement is only being questioned in regard to step dads.

I’d suspect the value in this sort of exercise for the single parents who do “fit the stereotype” would be minimal tbh because women whose self esteem and boundaries are poor enough that they bring a rotation of new boyfriends around their children are also those more likely to simply ignore any results / allow said boyfriend to tell her that it was a malicious allegation. Just as with all the women who end up losing their children to social care because they won’t end a relationship with a man they’ve been told is a danger. I have a trainwreck of a cousin who fortunately doesn’t have custody of her children, but who dates all kinds of dubious men with all kinds of criminal backgrounds that she’s fully aware of but “he didn’t do it / he got set up / his evil ex told lies to get him arrested.”

I simply would never move a man while I had DC at home

I’m stupid? Ok then. I haven’t ended up with the sort of person you describe, so evidently not.

Clare’s law is gods to have, but it’s not really going to be useful to most people, or used by many people.

Also, naive and stupid mean basically the same thing, so there is a level of irony to your comment 😑

I think most people wouldn’t put their partner of how ever many years on the same level with the guy they walked past at Tesco’s, and you calling them ‘random men’ implies that there’s no difference. I do think that women are sensible enough to wait until they bring a new partner home, let alone leaving them with their children unsupervised. A bigger danger are relatives, there’s less suspicion and more chance that they are unsupervised with children.

What? I said "half of the time, the mother isn't to blame" about family members/ bio dad's - meaning somtimes, the mum is also to blame ( some children will tell their mother and the mother will call them a liar )

Unfortunetly, as many of us know, some women cannot appropriately judge who is safe to be around their children and it's the children who carry the consequences

Well, I didn’t think you actually were stupid. More naive at best… but now… hmm.

It’s not all about you, right? We’re having a discussion about why this sort of thing is needed and you made a claim that of course women would know if they needed to check because they can tell a wrong ‘un. All I did was point out that that isn’t actually correct, and you’re doubling down? So yes, stupid rather than naive then. if you truly believe that it’s easy to tell if someone might not be safe.

No, they don’t mean the same thing. You’re just digging yourself further into looking quite foolish.

And you seem really offended at the idea that you can’t always tell a good person from a bad person. I think I’ve hit a nerve here.

I do think new male partners coming into a home with existing children are a high-risk group, so I agree with you OP. Many women are far to eager to rush into happy families, and it’s very worrying when it happens.

I suppose the difference is though that you would likely know if these men had any police history/convictions of a worrying kind. It's different when you meet a new partner.

I don't think OP's being wildly over the top with her suggestions. Tbh I think the reality is that a lot of people don't even know about these checks, and if they do they certainly don't think to use them on a partner until a red flag appears.

I had an enhanced DBS done for mine but as we all know that just mean they haven’t been caught, but why are you assuming that most don’t do checks?