Having sex in the same room as dds................heeeeeeelp

[namechangedbutaregularmnetter]

Brief history...

I split with Dh 7 months ago, he is in a one bed premises, he has a girlfriend.

My dds spend 3 nights a week with him.
He has a double bed and a set of bunkbeds in the bedroom.
My ex is having sex with his gf while the dds are hopefully asleep.
DD2 discovered a used condom this am.
DDs are not happy with situation...have talked to him.

I have just spoken to him...apparently i am not being 'grown up' about it.

I feel sick, i have step daughters and respected their privacy at all times...
and now i'm going to rant...
feck i need a smoke...and i'm giving up....

hmmm...anyhoo....heeelp

Although not something that I know has ever been enforced - if that makes sense.

in that case there are many many many parents who brea the law every day. I think what you mean is if they are having sex in front of a child for sexual gratification, then it could go to court. Surely?

it is not sexual abuse if the intention is not to gain sexual gratification or arousal from the fact that there is a child in the room!

but how do you prove that beanieb?

out of interest, what do you think the cut off age is?

Don't know - 4?

I honestly wouldn't claim that it was illegal if I wasn't sure and I have no reason to not believe the experts who made this quite clear (child protection officers and social services).

I can't find the evidence you require now but I will happily find out for you tomorrow when I can contact the people in the know.

From a browse through some law revision books, it is only a crime if

a) He is aware/ believes that the children are 'watching' - which he claims that they are not., saying that they are asleep.
b) He is undertaking the act, aware that the child is able to observe, and is getting sexual gratification from this knowledge. But no idea how you prove that.

That particular law covers under 16s but does not have a lower age limit.

But does the fact that it is not a crime according to law mean it is not still a form of abuse?

For what it's worth I was shocked at this also, but I assure you it is correct.

What he is doing is awful. You are right to make a stand. Don't allow him to make you feel like you are in the wrong!

It comes from the Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 11 - Engaging in Sexual Activity in the Presence of a Child.

Am not sure where you find in on t'Internet.

I think many new parents would have a fumble under the covers while sharing a room with a baby, as they don't have the cognitive ability to understand or be upset by it. Once a child is old enough to peer over the cot, it is time to find somewhere else to be intimate (or put the baby in their own room in my opinion, but that's another thread!).

This is very different to the situation the OP describes.

I thought it was normal to do that when a newborn was still sleeping in the same room as you (and asleep!) - we certainly did!

Oh I agree totally different to the situation being discused. However, if the OP can say with confidence to her XH that what he is doing is illegal it may have an effect.

If I was in the situation I would stop DC's
going until I was sure they were in a seperate room. It must be uncomfortable for them regardless of whether sex is occuring or not.

here it is

11 Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if?

(a) he intentionally engages in an activity,

(b) the activity is sexual,

(c) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he engages in it?

(i) when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii) knowing or believing that B is aware, or intending that B should be aware, that he is engaging in it, and

(d) either?

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable?

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

and

12 Causing a child to watch a sexual act

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if?

(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,

(b) the activity is sexual, and

(c) either?

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable?

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years

regardless of the letter of the law, i find it totally counter intuitive, not to mention flesh crawling, that an adult couple would have sex in the room with two children old enough to understand what the sex act is, and totally disregard the feelings of those children, who have expressed their upset and distress about it.

I think we need someone with legal expertise to tell us if this statement in the act "or the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification" is important and if it has to be proven that the activity was done purposefully and for gratification for it to be an offence.

I'd take (c) and (i) together - i.e. he's getting kicks from them being there, rather than it being incidental iyswim.
Willing to be told I'm wrong

Totally agree with you sleb

"regardless of the letter of the law, i find it totally counter intuitive, not to mention flesh crawling, that an adult couple would have sex in the room with two children old enough to understand what the sex act is, and totally disregard the feelings of those children, who have expressed their upset and distress about it"

I agree. Which is why the Mum of these kids needs to tell her Ex they will not be able to stay there until the situation is rectified.

"regardless of the letter of the law, i find it totally counter intuitive, not to mention flesh crawling, that an adult couple would have sex in the room with two children old enough to understand what the sex act is, and totally disregard the feelings of those children, who have expressed their upset and distress about it"

I too agree with this. I can't imagine a bigger passion killer TBH. He is disredarding the ex-wife's feelings (To be expected) but also knows his DDs don't like it either. Very cruel behaviour IMO.

If the OP doesn't feel strong enough going to SS then how about phoning NSPCC?