Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

FIL is a paedophile

265 replies

Choccybaby · 04/07/2015 22:15

No easy way to say this and I've being thinking of posting for a while. My FIL was convicted recently of looking at indecent pictures of children. We've had limited contact since (unsurprisingly).
MIL who is too nice still lives with him (we did offer she could live with us but she declined)
We now rarely see them and usually only MIL but I feel guilty - FIL probably had undiagnosed Aspergers, but I still can't forgive him for all the hassle he's caused ( meetings with social workers and police etc) and he seems to want to brush it under the carpet ...

OP posts:
RochelleGoyle · 07/07/2015 08:26

differentnameforthis You still haven't read my post properly. If you did, you would know that clinically speaking, paedophilia denotes primary sexual preference for children, rather than mere sexual attraction to children. You are clearly not happy to accept this though, which is fine. I was trying to provide some informed and reassuring words for the OP, rather than jumping in with the usual Daily Mail hysteria.

differentnameforthis · 07/07/2015 08:34

Paint it any way you like, someone looking at that type of image is a paedophile.

Nothing to do with DM hysteria.

Y0la · 07/07/2015 11:11

AGree, there is no link between autism and being a paedophile. Any adults I've come across who might be on the spectrum know right from wrong and want to see justice and rules and are very conscious of wrongs, and being wronged.

Y0la · 07/07/2015 11:13

Rochelle, I take your point wrt labelling but correct labelling is not really the point of the thread, nor is it the OP's main concern. (but if he's choosing to look at images of children then I don't really understand the argument for saying that he's not necessarily a paedophile).

RochelleGoyle · 07/07/2015 11:54

Hi Y0la. I agree, it's not the point of the thread but it made sense in the context of my original post. It's only gone on so long because I've had to explain myself. Was not my intention to derail! It was my thinking that things might be easier for the OP if she released herself from the expectations/pressures associated with 'paedophile in the family' and instead focused on understanding what the actual risks are and how best to manage these (in conjunction with some professional support). This might perhaps mean not entirely alienating FIL from his son. FIL is likely to be experiencing all kinds of emotions and may really need the support of his family - which doesn't have to compromise child safety.

Y0la · 07/07/2015 12:53

I can't speak from experience, but I don't know if it would be any easier to have a family member who had a sexual preference for children, or a family member who viewed images of children being abused. I do understand that some child abuse is an abuse of power and the subject of that abuse happens to be a child. But why would a man who did not have a sexual preference for children view images of children? Surely, he, more than the predator who offends children in his real life, surely he is a paedophile?

But................................... either way. Taomayto, tomahto

RochelleGoyle · 07/07/2015 13:00

I'm going to bow out of this thread now. Sexual offending is far, far more complex than tomaytoe, tomahtoe. I'm troubled that so many mothers appear to have such closed views. Some of you, at some point, may find that your own sons (maybe daughters) commit sexual offences...I wonder if you will then think more broadly on the subject.

Iliveinalighthousewith2friendl · 07/07/2015 13:14

I did not say there was a link and not am I in anyway stupid. You both know who I am referring to.
Op brought up the fact that her FIL had possible underlying Aspergers not me. Why was it brought up if to her there is no connection. Not saying it was that which made him commit his henious crime, perhaps she feels pity for him because of his possible Aspergers. I don't know. Like I said I did not initially write and. Just like I did not write. There is a link between abuse and Aspergers. Thank you

forumdonkey · 07/07/2015 13:21

Richelle I am increasing alarmed by your posts which seems to be defending the offenders of these crimes. I understand from your professional perspective that it is more complexed than it appears to the average 'mums' on here but ultimately for me the bottom line is that the victims are children and completely innocent end of. They are the ones who suffer untold life long damage. I hope that no child you know or in your family suffer abuse from a paedophile because you may not be as generous to explain away their actions.

LazyLouLou · 07/07/2015 13:36

Good grief, forumdonkey. I hope that no child you know or in your family suffer abuse from a paedophile because you may not be as generous to explain away their actions. That was truly vile... having had similar thrown at me in a couple of FemChat threads I can tell you that your post will have caused Rochelle to feel angry, sick, badly misunderstood and powerless to put that right.

You have posted a paedophile version of a Godwin... shame on you.

I happen to agree with Rochelle. All the monster shouting in the world will not help anyone. What we, as a society need to do, is better understand the roots of such behaviours and so, what proactive steps we can take to keep ourselves safe and to work with offenders in the hope that, in the absence of a specific island we can send them to, we can ameliorate their behaviours and reduce their criminality.

Simply standing and shouting won't make our children safer.

Midorichan · 07/07/2015 13:47

I'm sure the parents of the little kiddies who had sexual photos taken of them won't be so kind or understanding about paedophiles like you are Rochelle. I'm sure they won't be saying, poor man, he just needs some help and love from his family. Just because you like something like sexual images of children, doesn't give you the excuse to act on it because "you can't help it". He's an adult ffs. He didn't give a shit about the fact these little kids might be traumatIsed by what's been done to them forever. our headmaster and janitor where both convicted of paedophiles when I was at school - the janitor himself had my little brother's naked photo and his pants hidden in his school desk, along with ones of some of the other boys he used to volunteer to "watch over" when they showered after sports. My little brother still has bad dreams sometimes about that man, and he's fucking 30 years old. The OP's FIL just wanted his kicks. For some things, there are no sympathy, no excuses. I saw a documentary a while ago, Louie Theroux I think it was. A paedophile in America had put HIMSELF in prison because he knew he couldn't control his urges about children. Now him, I can look at and say Ok, at least you've done something to get yourself out of society and away from these little innocent kids. But her FIL is still at large in society. "just photos" is no excuse. My children's safety is more important to me than whether or not I upset a paedophile, i would keep them well away from him until they were older enough to make up their own minds after I told them the facts - "Granddad gets an erection looking at the naked bodies and sexual positions of little children". Then they can decide for themselves if they're happy to see a man like that.

Midorichan · 07/07/2015 13:50

If he's sick in the head then he needs putting away, and get help, somewhere he won't be helping to perpetrate these sick crimes against innocent children.

PeppermintPasty · 07/07/2015 13:53

I'm sorry that Rochelle feels the need to leave. She is measured and very helpful.

Y0la · 07/07/2015 14:06

Rochelle, of course it is and my comments didn't dispute the complex nature of it. She bowed out before answering the question I asked her. But perhaps that's ok.

Personally, I understood already the difference between the abuse of power when the subject is a child and a sexual preference for children. The FIL still sought out images of children being abused though.

Y0la · 07/07/2015 14:11

Ps, and I wasn't calling "monster" when I asked my question either. It was a valid question surely.

Perhaps the paedophiles or sex offenders can be rehabilitated but it's not actually the responsibility of a bunch of mums to feel empathy with a paedophile. I'm no vigilante, I leave it to the authorities, but to suggest that a mum can't understand the complex nature of it all is pointlessly and offensively patronising.

DixieNormas · 07/07/2015 14:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

saturnvista · 07/07/2015 14:36

In an age where experts agree that the explosion of paedophilia-related crimes is frankly terrifying, it's interesting that the aspect of this troubling Rochelle is mothers having 'closed views'. Is she unaware that parents in this country are constantly being advised to evaluate their children's safety in this regard and wake up to the possibility that they may be at more risk than previously supposed, especially where family members are concerned?

The word hysteria is suggestive of parents who are incapable of correctly evaluating risk and responding appropriately. In fact, a decisive action is perfectly capable of being measured, rational and appropriate.

As mentioned upthread, I strongly believe in the need to treat offenders/potential offenders with respect and compassion. I'm aware that this is necessary to defuse the risk of future offences. However, that is a job for adults. It is not necessary for children to be part of the support network. Defending the rights of children to be free from contact with paedophiles is different from suggesting that everyone else should remove themselves as well. Prioritising the needs of the most vulnerable does not preclude compassion for the perpetrators - and it's rather manipulative to suggest that it does. But there are consequences for harming children - and viewing images like these does constitute harming children. Rochelle made a vague reference to professional help but had no concrete guidance for how contact with the OP's FIL could work in practice. She was concerned about offenders being hurt by lack of contact with family, but had nothing to say about how the very real present and future risks could be minimised for children or if a scaled down, supervised version of the relationship would be in their best interests from an emotional perspective.

Rather than bemoaning our closed minds and flapping in the general direction of professional help to sort out the crucial details (I suspect the OP will not find these forthcoming), some guidelines and information from the children's perspective would have been helpful. Without this, I find Rochelle's input rather dangerous.

I had a very close friend who almost lost her life as a result of sexual abuse. As parents, we need to think carefully about the relationships we establish in our children's lives while they are young enough for this to be our responsibility because these are the people that are children will instinctively trust and our input into them will diminish as the children grow.

IamJeff · 07/07/2015 14:42

My neighbour was cautioned for doing the same and he still is probably the main carer for his young boys, going to assemblies, sports days, football matches etc. it makes me sick every time I see him. Have to try hard to bite my lip when it comes to complaining at school.

I think you're kind trying to see why he did it but minimal contact is the only way but being polite if you have to see him.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 07/07/2015 14:49

It's so difficult to have those conversations that give insight and understanding around this subject - partly because most people don't actually WANT to have insight into the mind of someone who would even contemplate hurting a child.

I think there may be a unbridgeable gap between this mindset, based on a instinctive and visceral rejection of someone who could do this, and the enquiring mind who sees the need to study, analyse and differentiate different types within this awful behaviour.

I don't think name calling and nasty wishes are in the slightest bit useful to either mindset. And neither is the right one vs the wrong one.

Rochelle Im sorry you find it troubling that 'so many mothers have such closed views'. They are reacting to abhorrent behaviour and protecting their children. They are also reacting to the great mistake of the previous judgement, which allowed paedophiles to operate under the noses of parents and people that should have protected the children.

By operating from a very different position, you are also going to need to state your viewpoint very clearly and assuage the fears that will be raised when you are coming at the topic from such a different mindset. I'm sure it's irritating and feels rubbish for you to be swimming upstream against a tide of instinctual reaction, but this is the nature of our society and the nature of the job you do. On this thread you jumped in without explaining why you were so keen to show differences in lay persons definitions, and people couldn't undrstand the point you were making and therefore your motivations. I think that was a mistake. Unfortuneately as you are the expert with the very specific viewpoint, it's you who needs to be very clear in phrasing any insight you chose to give, in a way that people can understand and also be very clear that you are not 'on the side' of the abusers vs the victims just because you choose to analyse the abusers and differentiate between them. I'm sure you feel that's annoying and that you shouldn't need to do that, but there is it, if you want to educate people you can't do that if people don't understand your motives.

If you don't signpost your position and motivation, whilst coming from a very different point of view, it's unsurprising you will get confusion and defensiveness. Especially on a thread which has in the subject matter adults excusing and minimising the behaviour of a paedophile.

'No sympathy', 'no excuses' type of response is because people want to keep the real victims centre stage and not forgotten. People are understandably very worried that by analysing and differentiating between types of offender, it's a small step to 'explaining away' the very real and life destroying effects of all types of motivator. The results remain the same to the individual victim and that needs to be very much the core of all thinking.

So, engaging in these types of forums you will need to be clear about your stance, as your stance is unusual and without clear signposting could be mistaken for something rather less moral and ethical than it is.

As for the insult about how you might react to a victim of it happened to your family. That was out of order and wrong. And I'm not excusing it but trying to understand it (a position in sure you will understand), when I say it was a (wrong) reaction to you making it personal with your last post, when you hope that mothers (parents?) would think differently if their children ever committed a sexual offense. It was a response 'in kind' to that insult. But took it a level worse, inexcusably.

LurcioAgain · 07/07/2015 15:10

Rochelle, I have a relative who is on the sex offenders register, and I don't let DS see him on police advice. I'm not some pitchfork wielding frother. As a result of having this relative (I was very close to his late mother, and until I had children myself tried to be there to offer some sort of support) I have actually read a reasonable amount about patterns of offending and the nature of sociopathic behaviour (not a mumsnet armchair diagnosis: the criminal psychologist on his offender management team diagnosed him). I understand the distinction between paedophiles (primary sexual attraction to children) and child sex offenders who don't have such a primary attraction but prey on whoever is most vulnerable (which might be children, might be adult women whose boundaries have been messed up by bad experiences, might be adults with learning difficulties, etc, etc).

I'm very glad on a society wide level that there are professionals like you who work with such people. And I'm glad there are lay people like the circle of friends initiatives who are prepared to keep sex offenders embedded in the wider community and thus minimise the risk of them going underground and out of sight of probation/social services.

But I'm still not going to let my DS anywhere near the relative in question (even though his offences were against older female children - and I understand from talking to professionals in the field that offenders tend to target specific age ranges and a specific sex). I'm not going to take the risk.

Floundering · 07/07/2015 18:12

To me it is a dealbreaker & going NC is absolutely the only way to go.

What I can't understand is the "going to family events" thing .....why?
Why be complicit in ignoring something so dreadful & playing happy families with a monster?
Makes my skin crawl.

forumdonkey · 07/07/2015 19:15

LazyLouLou worded badly by me, maybe, but it was in response to the post how we would react if our family was to commit a sexual offence ( child abuse, as this is the subject being discussed). The question,no matter how badly worded remains, I do wonder if professional opinion would alter if it became personal?

It doesn't change the fact that the post have come across to me as defending/ reasoning the behaviour. Also picking up on posts that refer to the OP's FIL as not being a paedophile because there is a clinical definition rather than the generally known and dictionary definition.

By definition children are always the innocent victims and while people can work to rehabilitate or whatever work is done, I would never ever ever trust that this is 100% effective and successful and trust a paedophile again. I would also ask what term Rochelle would like to use - a serious question btw?

At no time have I been alarmist and I would always safeguard and protect children first above the feelings of the FIL, MIL or any adult.

I wish I could expand and tell a whole load of stories which really are vile and heartbreaking but sadly I can't.

Bouncealine · 07/07/2015 20:05

My sons biological father has received 5 years on the sex offenders register and 3 years rehabilitation order for the same offence. Since we found out my son has had no contact with him. He wanted to 'brush it all under the carpet' and expected everyone to forgive him. It's not worth it, they knew what they where doing when they searched for the pictures. They've looked more than once to be caught. I don't want to project but I feel it's too late to show remorse after they've done it, the only thing they're usually sorry for is getting caught!!

Y0la · 07/07/2015 20:36

That must be hard for you bouncealine.

I can't imagine the shock.

Floundering · 07/07/2015 20:36

it's too late to show remorse after they've done it, the only thing they're usually sorry for is getting caught!!

This ^

These are people adept at gaining trust, often charming & believable with their lies & manipulation.

They also rarely change, with a reoffending rate that is higher than a lot of others I believe but TBH even 1% is too high.

OP I am really sorry for you & your DH he is going to need a lot of support as he reconciles who he thought his father was with what he actually is.