Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Darlington council strongly criticised for taking child into care due to father's past EDL membership, and underage sex police caution

43 replies

AgaPanthers · 18/02/2015 01:26

Basically: mother in prison, father appears to be a good father, but social workers said he was 'deeply immoral' because he had at one point joined the EDL, and also had accepted a police caution for sex with a 13 year old girl, when he was 17. Hence Darlington Council attempted to have the child adopted.

The judge was very critical and said that the council should have been concerned with the welfare of the child, and not determining over the father's 'morality'.

www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/11798923.UPDATED__Darlington_Borough_Council_slammed_by_top_judge_for_its_handling_of_family_custody_case_as_chief_executive_accepts__full_responsibility_/

OP posts:
SuburbanRhonda · 20/02/2015 18:07

I'm guessing that if he had been 18 at the time he would now be a schedule 1 offender but because he was 17 it's different?

Pixel · 20/02/2015 19:52

Funny how the government don't seem to care about that as they are all for handing out free contraception to 13 year olds without their parents' knowledge. But if a teenager (as he was) accidentally has sex with someone under-age then he's a criminal? If bar staff couldn't tell she was under 18 then you can hardly blame him for not knowing. There's no way those events translate to him being a risk to his baby.

SuburbanRhonda · 20/02/2015 20:23

pixel whereabouts in the country is contraception being handed out free to 13-year-olds, or is it a national thing?

Pixel · 20/02/2015 20:32

I saw something about it in the paper the other day. I'll see if I can find it.

Pixel · 20/02/2015 20:33

here it is.

Feckeggblue · 20/02/2015 20:40

Hasn't the under age sex issue been dealt with? And despite a catalogue of errors which has undoubtedly caused stress and upset to the child, thank goodness the judge has rectified this situation.

Pixel · 20/02/2015 20:53

Yes it certainly makes a nice change to have a sensible judge.

SuburbanRhonda · 20/02/2015 23:04

Thanks for that link, pixel.

What a surprise to see the scheme being criticised by the Family Education Trust. Not.

prh47bridge · 21/02/2015 00:21

Stealthpolarbear

I don't see anyone denying that he had sex with an underage girl nor do I see anyone denying that a 13 year old is a child. However, the law is more nuanced than you seem to think.

If she had been under 13 he could have been charged with a number of offences including assault of a child under 13 by penetration which carries a life sentence. Whether or not she had consented would have been irrelevant.

As she was 13 her consent was relevant in law even though she was under age. It is common ground that she did consent. This means he could only be charged with sexual activity with a child which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

As he was under 18 the maximum sentence he could have faced for this offence was 5 years. And if his story that she had been buying alcohol stood up he would have been able to argue that he reasonably believed she was over 16 which would mean that he was not guilty.

In any event, as the judge said, this is all irrelevant. The fact that 8 years ago when he was 17 he had sex with a 13 year old girl does not make him a threat to his son.

prh47bridge · 21/02/2015 00:23

pixel - Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this scheme it does not appear to have anything to do with the government. The report suggests it is being driven by West Sussex County Council.

Original poster
AgaPanthers · 21/02/2015 00:51

"As he was under 18 the maximum sentence he could have faced for this offence was 5 years. And if his story that she had been buying alcohol stood up he would have been able to argue that he reasonably believed she was over 16 which would mean that he was not guilty."

It doesn't work like that in reality. As a 17 year old up for what the police perceive to be a minor offence (possession of personal use quantities of drugs, or whatever), they will have you in and say 'Accept this caution or we'll ruin your life' [i.e. with criminal record, prosecution, etc.]. So you do.

Whether he could have proved his innocence isn't really the issue - in that scenario, the rational choice is to accept the caution.

The ramification of that, I suppose, are that if he has sex with ANOTHER underage girl, then you would be able to say from the previous caution that it's a pattern. But if he was up for something entirely unconnected eight years later, you can't draw too many conclusions.

OP posts:
Pixel · 21/02/2015 01:03

Ok thanks prh47bridge I hadn't realised that.

Stealthpolarbear · 21/02/2015 08:44

hanks phr
none of that changes my state,ent
he had sex
with a child
what happened after that is not contained or assumed within thay statement
yet people are personally attacking me for making it
i have no desire to debate this further

prh47bridge · 21/02/2015 16:19

AgaPanthers - Yes, he would have faced the choice of accepting a caution and walking away from it (albeit with a caution that will be on his criminal record for life) or going to court. If he went to court he may have been found not guilty and walked away a free man. Equally he may have ended up facing several years in jail. So yes, accepting the caution was the rational choice, although that doesn't always stop people taking their chances in court.

Whilst it isn't relevant in this case, I do wonder how many people accept cautions when they are completely innocent just because it is less risky than going to court.

funnyperson · 21/02/2015 19:47

I am with stealthpolarbear and i think prh47bridge post very enlightening and explains why police never bother to charge in these sort of cases and why free contaceptive therefore continues to be handed out to 13 year old girls wihtout their parents knowledge and why we have he highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe and why my daughter and I expect other peoples daughters were harassed and harrassed and harrassed by blasted blasted boys wanting underage sex the moment she reached 13.

funnyperson · 21/02/2015 19:49

Personally I think any person who had sex with a child is unfit to be a father.

funnyperson · 21/02/2015 19:54

One reason being they would probably not see any reason to protect their own children from sexual exploitation as they don't see it as abuse.

Pixel · 21/02/2015 20:44

Funnyperson, for your argument to work the person has to know they are having sex with a child, and still think it's ok. It doesn't work if they are led to believe the person is an adult. If you meet someone in a bar do you assume they are old enough to be there or do you always make a point of asking for their birth certificate just in case?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page