Why 'supervised' child contact?

[NewShoesRub]

I'm trying to get some insight to what is happening to a male friend of mine and google isn't quite answering my question....

He and his wife have split suddenly. I don't know her very well. she got a new flat etc sorted and moved out with their DC (6) without as much as discussing with him. It was quite a shock (according to him).

The question I have is around contact for their DC. My friend has been told he can only have 'supervised' contact with his son. Why would this be? An internet search is suggesting this is fairly normal - but why? My friend hasn't really been given any answers and his family is starting to throw out accusations that his exWife is making up lies, must have MH issues etc - I feel all of this is really unhelpful. Can anyone give me any insights please? Thank you

Of course he knows !! It may mean the children have protection orders on them . My friend has split with her husband and he is only allowed supervised contact because he was abusive and controlling . You would never know if you met him ! Some humans are so weird !

My kids would’ve had supervised contact with their dad. However I didn’t want them in a centre with someone watching like they were being punished so I didn’t facilitate it.
He didn’t deserve contact.
Can I just say that for those of you using the terminology “child porn/pornography” to please not as there is no such thing. Correct term is indecent or prohibited images of children. My ex parents backed him, over their own grandchildren I wasn’t allowed to be angry (understatement) or upset about it/with him. Now it’s all “he’s served his time”
We are moving on.
We the damage to my children is there and will never go away they can’t move on.
Makes me so angry 😡

BIL is one of these.
No idea why he's not allowed his kids. Ex is crazy. Won't hire a solicitor because reasons. No idea why social services contacted his new girlfriend and said they consider him a risk to her children. The courts are against men you know.

He's very hard done by.

Unless I've missed it your post isn't clear if it's the ex that has said he has to have supervised contact or if the courts have?

Sounds like him/his parents are trying to make out the child's mother is in the wrong.

Simply ask yourself, if that's the case, why is she the one allowed unlimited and unsupervised contact with her child and why is he only allowed supervised contact? Doesn't take a genius to work out who's most likely been awful.

My guess in this case would be DV.

My ex took great umbrage at the fact that he was granted supervised in a contact centre. I had raised concerns which had not been substantiated at the time of the court hearing ...
The courts took these very seriously and then he gave positive drug tests afterwards !

Ooohh, and I had a PSO

depends if it is the ex saying you can only have supervised contact....or if a judge has....
that is a huge difference.

a male family member had a similar situation - wife left suddenly taking dc, said only supervised contact, no idea why....dad said ok, paid for mediation which went on and on.....never did find out the reason why wife left, or why she demanded supervised contact.....now he sees dc on an agreed schedule - without any court order etc.....
no accusations ever made. he is a good dad. it just took a good 6 months of mediation to agree on what worked for all parties.

who is saying supervision is needed? mum or a court - that is vital information!!!!

I think it's court but I'm going to check.

@NewShoesRub
think it's court but I'm going to check.
If it’s Court, then there are definite causes for concern about the children. I’m an ex-social worker, if it’s gone to court, there are valid concerns and he’s clearly playing them down.

@NewShoesRub

I think it's court but I'm going to check.

If it is court ordered then there must be huge concerns for the safety of the children around him, even if he denies or downplays any of the issues.

My BIL denied the issues listed against him and said he didn't recognise the person described in that report. As did my MIL because he was the golden child and the sun shone out of his arse.

DH and I, and other members of the wider family who had long and bitter experience of BIL absolutely DID recognise the person in the report.

BIL rejected supervised contact. He wanted full access or nothing and was arrogant enough to believe that he would definitely get the full access. He got nothing, thankfully.

He knows.

Why is your family so involved? None of their or your business what is happening in someone else's marriage.

Maybe you'd like to offer her and support to the wife, it sounds like she might need it. Unless it is busybodying.

help* not her

Are you more involved with this than you’re letting on @NewShoesRub ?

If the supervised contact is Court Ordered and backed up by CAFCASS or the LA then it is for a very good reason as others have said

When you say supervised contact who is saying this. Is it a court or social workers or is it the wife?

Hey all, as mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm not trying to find out the details of what went on in their marriage,I agree it's none of my business. I'm trying to urge my parents to stay neutral and perhaps distance themselves as their friends see their son as the injured party and seem to have not considered he may be withholding info from them.

Your feedback on this thread has helped me get some insight into this area which I have now fedback to my mum.

I think it's useful to raise awareness (within my family) due to there being no doubt tonnes of women in similar situations. I'm working on figuring out the balance between "it's none of my business" and "there could be a woman & child who have been harmed here" ultimately how "we" (the family, the friends) talk about this is either going to raise awareness, or, simply stack up the old stereotypes of 'it's all her fault' which so many people have expressed major frustration about on this thread.

I'm grateful for the insight from so many people on here.