AIBU to feel scared ahead of a Clare's Law disclosure call?

[Justpickitup]

So I did a Clare’s law request on a guy I have been seeing for a few months. I’ve never felt the need to do this before but I just had a gut feeling. He is quite protective and needy. Anyway I did it and now I have to have a video call as they are ready to disclose? I’m really really scared.

I just want to say I think you were really wise and prioritising your family in asking the question. The fact nothing came up doesn’t change that. I’m a stranger on the internet but I’m proud of you!

Thank god somebody normal comes along! I appreciate that thank you

I don’t think you need to disclose this to him tbh.

I wonder if the police note it and if they get numerous requests to check somebody, do they do anything differently? I guess not as this could be a deliberately malicious act?

Oof, that stings a bit! Not sure what you mean by "normal" but plenty of people have praised you for requesting the disclosure and putting your children first. This post comes across as ungracious, whether you meant it that way or not.

Many people have said it was reasonable to enquire.

Some people have cautioned against dropping your guard and explained the limitations of the 'nothing to disclose' as a way of further trying to help you safeguard yourself and your children which is all you were trying to do in the first place. Not as a way of villifying this man or criticising you.

Some have corrected your misunderstanding about what it is you were actually enquiring about and what could be disclosed.

Some have made you aware of a parallel law you had no knowledge of.

Some people have shared personal experiences.

You've even had the SS element explained to you in detail.

Those are all 'normal' and supportive replies to you.

But a facile response about a stranger being proud of you (sorry, oncemorewithsome) is the only one you see any value in?

Respectfully, those of who you think are not ‘normal’ are trying to help you.

You want to protect your DC. People are pointing out that you haven’t actually applied for the right disclosure, and so you have no idea if he is a sex offender.

They have also tried to empower you to listen to your own gut feelings when you said that you felt something was ‘off’ about him.

An echo chamber in which people simply agree with you is not helpful in a situation like this.

No I apologise, most people have actually been really supportive but the ones that just said it isn’t a check service etc really annoyed me. I like to know I have done everything I can to protect the people I love the most. It worries me that people go blindly into a relationship ship, involve the kids etc as usually the people you need to worry about don’t show anything but niceness on the beginning

I do really like this guy, my guard isn’t down, I will still be vigilant and raise any concerns, I will do absolutely everything to protect my children. I have made my decision about the relationship and thank you all for your support. It means a lot

OP, you haven’t done everything that you can to protect children. Kindly, is there a reason you are refusing to acknowledge that you have not done the right check? You are being evasive and that is concerning.

Thank you for apologising. I can't comment on whether you have applied for the "wrong" sort of disclosure, because from my experience in SS it is Clare's Law that is suggested within safeguarding meetings - perhaps because it's more accessible. I don't know the rationale for why multiagency professionals (including the police) tend to favour Clare's Law.

The fact is, you were proactive and that shows that you care. That's really positive.

I think you've left some unanswered questions around why you are now suggesting he had done "nothing wrong" when he triggered your gut instinct to request the disclosure in the first place. I would also wonder whether his behaviour has improved because you have made changes to your own behaviour to keep the peace - but perhaps you don't want to answer that.

Hopefully you can see that those saying it isn't a checking service are responding to things you have said, laterly, now that you know that his Clare's Law disclosure is clear. You didn't do it routinely; you were prompted to do it by his behaviour.

Please don't see people trying to help you as being an attack. I'm sure some responses haven't been pleasant to read and that comes with the territory of posting on here, unfortunately. The vast majority of responses fundamentally have your best interests at heart.

Hopefully you can understand that by posting this, it's also brought up feelings for people and their own experiences - which may explain why some of the responses are coming from people who have experienced abusive behaviour. It's actually quite a traumatic subject and hopefully you can see why some people are questioning your shift in reasoning.

Sorry for the essay. Honestly do wish you well.

That’s a bit harsh. I’ve just read the entire thread and some posters have been really helpful and obviously don’t want you or your kids to end up being hurt.

Edit: I see you’ve apologised 👍

In her defence, OP has said that she wasn't aware of Sarah's Law until today. She can't have applied for a check that she wasn't aware of. Although it's clear that you're saying this with good intentions, I think it's reasonable to say that she applied for the disclosure that she knew about, so in her mind that would be doing what she could to protect her children.

Every day's a school day and she may or may not decide to apply for Sarah's Law now. I just think it's only fair to point out that she applied for what she was aware of - which is actually a lot more than many women with a gut feeling would do (ask me how I know!)

It worries me that people go blindly into a relationship ship, involve the kids etc as usually the people you need to worry about don’t show anything but niceness on the beginning.

I can't speak for Clare's Law because Sarah's Law had already been in existence for a while by the time it came out and so it was possibly only seen as a good thing and the concerns had already been addressed.

But one of the strongest arguments against Sarah's Law at the time was the fact it might encourage some people to overlook their instincts if they enquired and there was 'nothing to disclose'. That it might have encourage people to have more confidence and find more reassurance in a non disclosure than the evidence of their own experience of a person.

Glad to see you are going to maintain vigilance. I hope it works out well for you.

I apologised

That really surprises me, I was told I must not tell anyone

I think you were absolutely right to check! What’s the message otherwise…if you have doubts force them down and carry on? No way, expert advice is listen to instincts and use these services if you feel you need them.

OP “I’m getting a Clare’s Law check on my boyfriend as he has given me cause for concern”

PP “Ok but if he gives you cause for concern you maybe shouldn’t carry on seeing him”

OP “It’s fine, I’m going to get all future boyfriends checked too so that means I don’t need to address my concerns about this one as I’ve convinced myself I always request one”

Very odd logic.

exactly my experience of my disclosure request, I had to have a pre-meeting to explain very clearly what my concerns were and the direct impact on me. When I was told i must not tell the subject that I had made the request, and that when I got my verbal disclosure (no written allowed) it was stressed I must not ever share the information.
a this telling people you did it is so wrong

We were theoretically allowed to discuss the Sarah's Law disclosure with the two people who were already aware of it prior to disclosure and who had been made aware that a disclosure was being made. But no one else.

If someone received nothing to disclose and then shared that with the person they'd enquired about, that person would already know there was nothing to disclose.

If a disclosure is made under Sarah's Law, the person is informed that an enquiry has been made and that a disclosure will he made and the nature of that disclosure.

I'd be curious as to whether the same was true of Clare's Law? I'd suspect not due to increased risk of violence.

Well, the actual expectation is that, if you have doubts, you will end a relationship.

This Law is there to protect those who are potentially vulnerable and might not be able to do that or might not recognise they should have doubts or for those who are concerned about a close friend/relative partner when they haven't expressed any doubts themselves but others do have them.

No one is supposed to force down their doubts and carry on regardless in a relationship they are concerned about because they haven't done a check.

ETA: if you make a disclosure on behalf of someone else, you will not be told anything more. Not even whether there is a disclosure to be made or not. The disclosure is made to the 'interested party'. Eg the partner or parents (depending on the Law used).

So anyone who holds a different opinion to you is not normal? What a disgusting attitude.

Should say if you make an enquiry on behalf of someone else.

I do see what you are saying but there is no official expectation to end the relationship rather than do a check, and it’s there for anyone who has an instinct something is wrong. For many that instinct would be enough to end things, but if for OP it isn’t then she is probably the kind of person who should check.

My concern is that a lack of a record doesn’t mean these instincts were off, I know you said you will still be careful OP but please be really cautious as these gut feelings don’t come from nowhere.

The OP has apologised for that comment already.

Don’t be fucking ridiculous. It’s there to prevent domestic abuse in circumstances where someone is worried they might be at risk, which is exactly why OP wanted to use it. The police would rather reassure a hundred people that there is no history than have one person killed because she or he was worried they didn’t have a good enough reason to ask for a check.

It is the police’s job to decide if the threshold for disclosure is met. People with concerns about their partners’ behaviour should not self-select out of seeking relevant information about their past history out of fear that they’re overreacting.