Rapist given access to son

[RedToothBrush]

From Times front page yesterday.

Rotherham Council have agreed to give a rapist access to the son of one of his victims.

She was 15 at the time and part of the grooming scandal. He has not got any parental responsibility. He's not mentioned on the birth certificate but the local authority have taken it upon themselves to contact this man with a view to arrange visits.

Honestly, who at the council, thinks this is in any way in the best interests of the child or his mother?

For Fuck's sake.

Surely a conviction for rape should come with an automatic injunction never to go near the victim or her family ever again?

This whole thing places women in the UK on a par with women with the least rights in the world, e.g Afghanistan or Saudi.

Shame, shame and shame again on the people in councils and social services and law who did and do this. They are accessories to the trauma of rape. I hope they are named and shamed.

If Sammy can stand up, waive her anonymity and and speak for justice these council workers should be similarly name themselves and account for their actions.

What can we best do to stop this ever happening again? What is our most effective action?

If you go on Sammy twitter feed which is on page 1 of this thread she said write to MOJ

Shame, shame and shame again on the people in councils and social services and law who did and do this. They are accessories to the trauma of rape. I hope they are named and shamed

Blaming social workers without knowing the facts of the case is not ok.
The law says that known birth parents must be contacted in cases of public law proceedings. Only the court can veto this.

I actually feel physically sick over this. Horrendous. Absolutely horrendous. I’ve never written to MOJ. How do you go about this? (I’m not on Twitter.)

NotANotMan: OK, but it seems from what you say that a raped woman has to go to court to get an opt out agreement of a rapists right to apply for care / access.

Even when the rapist has raped a MINOR.

It is obviously wildly wrong, and Sammy has been put through trauma to even be obliged to go to court and get that agreement.

What is the best way to get this law changed?

Just when I thought that the whole trans thing was as bad as it was going to get

"Blaming social workers without knowing the facts of the case is not ok."

She says she was asked to go to court and not told that he could have been there, and fought for access.

I do blame whoever was responsible for that.

He wasn't 'given access'. He was written to to ask if he wanted to be party to care proceedings. That is the law as it stands - the court has to give agreement to known birth parents not being contacted. As the family courts are private, we don't know whether this was asked for and denied or not.

Thanks for the legal clarification NotANotMan. In other papers it is reported that the child understood that access was on the cards. He seems to be extremely vulnerable (taken into care with his mother's consent because she could not meet his needs). This should never have been on the radar.

I agree with PPs. If this is actually legal it needs to be changed.

OK so whatever happened behind closed doors in this case, it seems that the facts are:
If there is a known parent, including that parent being convicted of rape against the mother of the child when she was a minor, a court agreement has to be pro-actively sought to prevent that parent having access? And / or agreeing to a passport? Other aspects of parental responsibility?

ThevMOJ spokesperson said the council could have gone to,court to stop this
They choose not to
The council
Sarah champion said the MOJ could make the guidelines clear so that councils cannot interpret the guidelines however they wish to
Sarah said they could do this today

I understood it different to your opening post Op.
The rapist didnt ask for access therefore the council didn't agree it with him. He didn't want anything to do with his child. I understood the council had approached him as the child was going into care due to complex behavioural needs and although the man is a convicted rapist he is still the father of the child and his opinion was sought.

Whatever the finer details are though it is absolutely outrageous that this woman is in this situation. I guess I can understand Rotherham are trying to cover themselves if the rapist launches a legal challenge to his rights but my god has nobody got the balls to stand up for what is right. That woman has been through hell. A load of social worker staff and their manager would have had a planning meeting and not even taken into account the ordeal or the sentencing. The guy would be on the Protocol system as A Risk to Children!
Between this and the throng case in Ireland women's rights are just overlooked and trampled over and over again.
Things seem to be worse than when I was a teenager 40 years ago

The child will be 18 now, he can make his own mind up surely?

This happens all the time, everywhere. Rapists and violent abusers are given parental rights to the children they 'fathered' with their victims. Not just in the case of CSE, but also within marriage and relationships. What Sammy is doing will hopefully help all women in these situations to protect their children from their abusers.

Ministry of Justice contact form link

contact-moj.dsd.io

It should be noted that what the courts actually do is prioritise the child. It's not about the father's rights. We have a wealth of evidence that children who are not given the opportunity to fully know and understand their backgrounds (even when their backgrounds are not good) are more likely to have identity issues in the future.

Things become very tricky with egregious cases because of this.

Is there anything a man can do to be denied access to his kids. The rights of the father to have access always seems to rank far higher than the wellbeing of the children.

Rotherham council lawyers/SWs would have known that they could apply to the courts to not notify the father about the proceedings.

It was Sammy Woodhouse who was pivotal in exposing the sexual exploitation in Rotherham and the failings of the LA and SYP in the first place. It was she who gave the interview to the Times journalist Andrew Norfolk which triggered the eventual independent investigation.

How interesting that instead of acting in the clear interests of her son, the council pursued a course which could have meant she ended up with her rapist back in her life again.

If there is a known parent, including that parent being convicted of rape against the mother of the child when she was a minor, a court agreement has to be pro-actively sought to prevent that parent having access? And / or agreeing to a passport? Other aspects of parental responsibility?

That is the law as it stands. A parent I worked with once applied to have the father not made party to proceedings and it had to go to the high court for a decision. It's never done lightly.

The other issue is that if a child goes into care the law requires local authorities to explore family members rather than long term foster care or adoption. The rapist father might have had a lovely mother or sibling who could care for the child rather than him going to strangers. It's not simple.

the reporting in the Times is incorrect. This is the correct information from the Transparancy Project a group of family lawyers, journalists and academics striving to ensure accurate reporting and greater understanding of the Family Courts www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

Does that link refer to a different newspaper article?

The link states that the mother is anonymous in the article, whereas clearly she is not in The Times article. There is a big picture of her and repeated references to her name.

If you read the full article the mother has identified herself

Thanks user1471... for that link. Bookmarking the site for future reference.

This issue was just covered on Jeremy Vine and Sammy Woodhouse herself was speaking to JV about it. Her son is now 17 and a half and she discussed going public with him before doing it.

The MoJ were contacted as part of the programme and clarified that the council could have asked permission not to go through the process of contacting the rapist to ask if he wanted parental rights; however, Rotherham clearly decided not to bother.

They also had a former council solicitor on who supported the notion that the council solicitors (and she mentioned we should bear in mind that Rotherham are still under investigation for their child protection failings) should have been all over this and ensured that the appropriate court ruling was applied for and that therefore the rapist was not contacted.

I will add that Sammy said she was in contact with other women in other parts of the country in a similar position and the same thing has happened to them...

Well it’s comforting 🙄 to see that the judiciary are consistent in their treatment and consideration for victims of sexual assault throughout the western world.

Fuckers. Ugh.