FIL is a paedophile

[Choccybaby]

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 ...

yeah ok, we can mitigate against the sexual abuse of children because policemen do it too when they have to view evidence

whatever

Mide But what behaviour are you advocating when you are saying we should learn about sex abusers and not 'label them all monsters'? Are you suggesting that children should have access to potential sex offenders so they know how to recognise an actual sex offender because I see problems with that Or what exactly?

It's my feeling that we would be doing our children a disservice to ask them ever to be in the company of someone with a history of child sex abuse. I'm from a fairly traditional culture and the husband is still seen as a protective figure. There is no way that he would ever ask him to be in the company of someone who had a history of sex crimes against women, regardless of what they were. How could it possibly benefit me? Even if DH was there to prevent my being in any actual danger and I didn't know the offender's history, it would still be very possible that I'd pick up on something in the person's manner and feel uneasy. And the friendship couldn't go anywhere because no trust can grow - eventually I'd become aware of that and identify the person as a danger to my safety. It would be pointless and stressful, not to mention logistically quite difficult to ensure my safety at all times. But surely I'm there to protect my children a great deal more than my husband is there to protect me.

I think our culture still leans towards the primacy of adult's interests over children's in many ways; we sometimes ask children to go through experiences (such as bullying) that an adult would kick up much more of a fuss about if it was happening to them. The way that child abuse was handled for many years is a case in point. If Rochelle and others had her way, it seems as if we could end up back there.

jap Do you mean if a family member purchased an image that would be worse than if they'd downloaded it for free?

A police officer viewing images is different from someone who is choosing to view the same images for recreational purposes; the police officer is not making a true choice to view the images. He is doing so because he has a job to do and obviously that does not magically cause a child somewhere to be abused. The police stand (one would hope) outside the cycle and they benefit not at all from it - I devoutly hope you already knew that.

Saturn- all I'm suggesting is adults/ police officers/ psychologists should try and learn as much about paedophiles as possible. Not suggesting kids have access at all.

trying to educate kids on "stranger danger" mostly back fired because (as a massive generalisation ) a lot of bad things that happen to kids are done by people they know.

Christin i agree with your approach-why take a chance. Pedophiles spend their life's energy to position themselves as a trusted person in the lives of children. Certain jobs attract more of them because the work is with children. We want our children to be safe but not fearful of everyone. How to achieve that balance is the duty of parents. I have to ask why meerka, who is notorious on mn for pushing nc for everything , is twisting herself into knots and not saying it this time?!

OP has said her FIL has been convicted of looking at indecent pictures of children. There is no evidence that it was "men raping children", as someone here has said; or that the OP's FIL is a danger to his grandchildren.

OP, I would not go NC with him - he is the children's grandfather. Your DH could maybe take the children on supervised visits?

As for people questioning why OP's MIL stayed with her husband, how about "for better, for worse (...) in sickness and in health"?

OP has said her FIL has been convicted of looking at indecent pictures of children. There is no evidence that it was "men raping children", as someone here has said; or that the OP's FIL is a danger to his grandchildren.

OP, I would not go NC with him - he is the children's grandfather. Your DH could maybe take the children on supervised visits?

As for people questioning why OP's MIL stayed with her husband, how about "for better, for worse (...) in sickness and in health"?

Just unbelievable, especially the last paragraph. Your moral compass is very skewed indeed.

In sickness and in health - really? I for one would kick any DH, BF, DP straight out of my life if convicted of this. If there was even the hint of searching images I would personally report his sorry arse to the police myself.

I am increasing shocked by some of these posts. To share a life, a home and a bed with a man who is getting sexual gratification from a child in incomprehensible to me, I am astounded by some of these posts and posters attitudes.

I wonder how many of these posters would be appalled and up in arms to see photos of dog fighting or animal cruelty on FB etc but find child abuse photos forgivable somehow.

Iona Do you think a conviction is secured for very much less than images of rape? I doubt it. Are there indecent images of children that aren't all that bad, to your way of thinking?

I would like to meet one person in RL who could see a man convicted of this crime, look at their children and think 'no evidence he's a danger to them'. It would be complacent beyond belief. Perhaps not every voyeur will go on to act but it's audacious to say you have no evidence the man could be a danger to his grandchildren.

Are you aware of how many children have been abused by family members who didn't listen to their gut instinct because it was a blood relative, despite statistics showing that this is where abuse is most likely to happen. To every comment that a grandparent is a grandparent after all, I have not the slightest hesitation in responding that yes, it's a big role to fill, and something too important to be done badly.

The Iona Institute are that group that came out against equal marriage in Ireland (Breda O Brien being one of the head honchos) so it doesn't exactly surprise me that someone with that username has a skewed perception of the sanctity of marriage.

saturnvista yes a conviction would easily be secured for far less 'serious' images than rape. The lowest category is actually relatively innocuous (though obvs not ok, and still illegal). Images of actual rape would be in the highest category and would almost invariably result in a custodial sentence. So if a supervision order/relapse prevention programme plus (mandatory) regisration on the sex offender's register is the sentence, it would imply that the offence itself is relatively 'minor'. People don't get convicted only for rape images, and let off for anything lesser.

IonaNE It used to be called child porn ... what the hell do YOU think that looks like?

First time I have been genuinely shocked by a thread. I am astounded that there is so much support for someone convicted of sexual offences relating to children. OP the fact that this man gets his kicks from looking at kids means he will also be looking at your children in "that way". Your kids are already in his perverted fantasies .......chilling.

ZakoK Interesting to know but relatively innocuous??? Are you for real? How can an indecent image of children be 'relatively minor'? Putting the phrase into quotation marks doesn't take away the gross inappropriateness of the words you're using to diminish this offence.

For me and many others, there is no such thing as a relatively minor indecent image of a child. I would interpret viewing such an image as a reason to remove my child permanently from the viewer's presence. Without. A. Second. Thought.

I'm not attempting to say what anyone should do in this circumstance, just pointing out that if the guy has not recieved a custodial sentence then the images he has viewed are going to be less serious images than rape. I could link to the sentencing guidelines or classificationd but I was trying just to make that point, and sorry if you or anyone else is upset by my choice of words. The actual classifications (there used to be 5 levels, they've now been reclassified into A, B and C) are (and I'm paraphrasing here): A: Images of abuse involving penetration, violence or bestiality; B: Other images of a sexual nature and C: anything not covered by A or B.
So category C offences are not even 'sexual'; hence my use of the term 'relatively minor'. Point being, they are still illegal on account of being abusive and exploitative, and rightly so. However, posession of category C images ONLY and no aggravating factors e.g., previous convictions, while it will result in a conviction if proven, may not attract a custodial sentence. Which is what this case sounds like.
I'm not offering an opinion, just stating fact, so please don't ask me if I'm 'for real' or 'grossly inappropriate'.

I have to ask why meerka, who is notorious on mn for pushing nc for everything , is twisting herself into knots and not saying it this time?

You may be confusing me with AtillatheMeerkat

For whom I have a lot of respect but there are quite a few times where she would suggest NC where I don't think it's necessary.

Pedophiles spend their life's energy to position themselves as a trusted person in the lives of children

active paedophiles. Not all of them are. Some choose to live celibate lives, which is not an easy choice for many (though absolutely necessary).

And if I were to offer an opinion, while it's a more general one than the specifics of this case, it would be to say that the ease of availability of internet pornography in general has got a LOT to do with this kind of case. Viewers become desensitised to the 'normal' images of adult hetero sex and over a period of time give themselves 'permission' to seek out more extreme images - say, for example, BDSM, or gay stuff if the viewer is straight, or fetish, or disabled people or any of the pretty revolting 'niche' stuff that's out there. It's incredibly easy to find, and through a process of normalising what they see the viewer can continue to extend their range, as it were, in some cases crossing over into illegal territory involving children or animals.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel ALL porn is dangerous as it so easily allows/leads the viewer on to more and more extreme images, even stuff that they wouldn't have thought of themselves as a particular interest. Obvioulsy it is entirely the viewer's decision to search for certain types of image and entirely their responsibility if they do choose to view illegal images, and as far as internet porn goes the genie is out of the bottle, I fear; there's no legislation can put it back in. But the secondary point to this is that not everyone who is convicted of this offence sits down at their computer first time with the specific purpose of searching for images of violent child sexual abuse because that's what gets them off. In many less serious cases, there will have been a background of porn addiction, increasing range of types of porn, and eventual viewing of low-category illegal images.

I have a naive question, which is for my own information and no other agenda - does the category C "indecent pictures of children" include pictures of teenage girls, under 16, in their underwear? Such as they inadvisedly post themselves occasionally? And, if it does, do they get into trouble for it? Do their boyfriends get into trouble for re-posting those pics? I know that boys have got into trouble for sending "sexy" pictures of their girlfriends to their own friends, but is it under this classification?

There's a lot of stuff we just don't know from the OP.

We don't know the category of the indecent images.

We don't know why MIL stays with FIL. There could be and probably are reasons we don't know anything about.

There's an awful lot of extrapolation and knee jerk reaction and demonization here. Calling him a 'monster' and 'animal' and such like simply doesn't help.

I honestly think some people here would see burning this man alive as justified.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10421076/Police-suspended-after-innocent-man-accused-of-paedophilia-burned-to-death.html

Why not go and join the mob?

Choccy, how are you? Seems a shame your request for advice has turned into a major debate. Hope you have managed to filter something useful out of all this, and that you are moe settled in your mind about the way forward for you and your family. Take care.

ye I hope the OP found some useful advice somewhere.

Yes thumbwich Cat C is "images of erotic posing" so it could relate to pouting 15yr olds in their underwear. The following .odf has all of the categories
consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdf

catrus it's hard to imagine the police would prosecute for just pouting 15 yos though?

have you any idea what level of stuff -is- considered grounds for action?

^The indecent images offences have a statutory
maximum of five years’ imprisonment
for possession of images^

how come the FIL would not have been given a custodial sentance?

Thanks cats.

Statutory MAXIMUM, I.e., up to. The minimum would be a medium-level supervision order, and most would fall somewhere in between. A lot depends on the category.