Roy and Kirsty up a tree, K I S S I N G? Swipe right for The Archers thread and enjoy the Ambridge dating scene.

[PseudoBadger]

Officer, why don't they have an archivist - saving money? If so, it is a false economy as hardly a week goes by without a MN spotting an inconsistency.

A lot of the sw have been around for so long you have to wonder how they don't notice

I think it's a sign of socs arrogance. Why would he, the great and all powerful, need an archivist? Pah, consistency is for wimps!

Didn't VW get rid of the archivist a while ago, so not a SO'C sin?

Actually I am surprised that they sent a copy to Helen. Would that happen ?

The report would have been sent to her lawyers who would of course send her a copy. The same would happen on Rob's side.

I'm sure that Adam's status at Home Farm changed specifically because he wanted to do the herbal lays and mob grazing. Wasn't it how he convinced Brian that he understood the risks and still thought it worthwhile - if it goes wrong he effectively earns nothing.

And in fairness to the SWs we don't know they've forgotten any of this. Brian frequently has these blips where he goes around moaning because things aren't going as well as he'd like. And he's very much a traditional (well, late 20th century) farmer - so if he's feeling nervous about yields I think it's entirely in character for him to want to revert to high input methods.

Herbal leys stupid autocorrect

If you are going to limit contact to once a month, you have to wonder what the point is..

So getting Toe-bee as a cocklodger, as well sexist about cows being on their monthlies. Utter twat.

I agree about the contact, what would be the point...once a month as the baby grows up. And always supervised...

Rob will obviously attack the report on the basis that the the psychologist is female and therefore automatically biased against him and incompetent. Let's hope they get the same judge as before who is highly unlikely to buy it.

If contact continues to be supervised, I hope they have the sense to say it has to be at a contact centre and supervised by someone neutral. In that situation it would be much more difficult for Rob to order everyone to arrange it to suit his convenience, and there would be independent evidence of his intolerance of the baby having an off day.

I don't want to defend rob or anything because in this case all is probably correct

But didn't he only have one meeting with the psychologist? Is it really fair to have such a damning verdict from one meeting?

also, dads who have been convicted of various things seem to get access to their kids. Loads of threads on here. How realistic is all this?

The worst outcome to this sl is that it has an unrealistic happy ending

Although I don't think knob will disappear off. I hope he is prosecuted but fear an EE style denouement

My limited understanding is that it is generally considered beneficial to maintain contact if possible, as long as any potential harm can be prevented, hence contact centres. I assume this is because it is thought that it may prevent feelings of abandonment in the children.

Once a month for a baby seems a bit pointless - there can't be much bonding happening.

And I agree that just one report that doesn't involve observing Rob with the kids as well seems a little too easy.

But maybe the psychologist has been listening to the programme for a while.

I'm not sure if it was just one meeting, or whether we only heard about one. But the psychologist would have had access to all the notes, including the social workers' observations of Rob's interactions with Henry and what he said to them, plus presumably trial statements and transcripts and things like medical notes. I guess there may also have been pertinent information from other sources like former employers. But perhaps the main thing is that Rob would have been unable to hide things like his attitude to marital rape and views on bringing children up, simply because he sees nothing wrong with them.

Psychologist assessments are often conducted over one appointment - but it will be a very long appointment and include observation of the parent and child. They also read social worker reports and speak to family.
That report was damning. I'm not sure that a report would be quite so firmly damning, it's usually more speculative and tentative but I suppose for a drama they need to make things clear as crystal.

Let's hope they get the same judge as before who is highly unlikely to buy it.

Rob's access is currently limited 'pending the Psychologist's report' so presumably the recommendations will be followed, whoever the Judge is?

I thought we heard Rob and Ursula talk about the young female psychologist who obviously didn't know anything about anything at least twice? He is definitely going to be furious with the report, either way. (Good!)

I think the point of once a month contact is that it's starting from the premise that contact is beneficial for the child. For now it seems fairly pointless, but as Jack gets older he will know that his father wished to see him and complied with the requirements to allow him to do so. It has to be beneficial for a child to know that, even if he later realises that his father is a narcissistic bastard.

I wonder if the once a month recommendation is a bit like leaving a 10p tip in a terrible restaurant - more offensive than nothing at all. The psychologist is effectively saying I recommend no contact but because it is considered in Jack's interest to know his father she's gone for the bare minimum, and supervised at that (because actually they want Rob to have no influence over the child). I agree that at this stage it would surely be sensible to move to a contact centre with an official supervisor. We've had the drama of Tony doing it. I can't see even any dramatic benefit to carrying that on for the next 18 years.

Also I think it could be interesting to hear Rob's discussion with his solicitor (?Steven) about the report. We had the distinct impression that Steven thinks Rob is a knob at best and delusional at worst, so I'm not sure how willing he will be to go raging into the family court on Rob's behalf.

Do we know when the hearing is?

The problem I foresee with limited access is that Jack will romanticise his father and Helen will become the bad parent. In the teenage years he will rebel and find knob and have a few toxic years

Isn't it better for Jack to know him - not just see him once a month?

I had the impression that the door was closed in relation to Henry? Though Rob seems to have convinced himself that he'll end up with sole custody.

Come to think of it, his application for Jack's name to be changed is liable to raise alarm bells with any judge with a bit of sense, isn't it?

WouldHave thanks for replying about Helen getting a copy of the report. I never understood why contact wasn't in a contact centre.