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?

My post was referring to the link provided by user1471.

"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"

The fuck????

Please also remember that local authorities are represented by solicitors in care proceedings. The solicitor tells the social worker what orders can be applied for in those specific circumstances. The local authority's solicitor should have made sure that the social worker knew that an exemption could be applied for - we have no idea whether the social worker even knew this.

I am flabbergasted by that comment.

The fuck what? That's the law childprotectionresource.online/tag/re-b-s/

"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 "

TLDR: This woman is exxagerating / lying about what has been going on for her own agenda

This thread is unbelievable.

Even after the gross failings that we have seen in this area across the "authorities" that include SS some still say, yes they know best, dont' question, this woman is telling the wrong story, I don't think it's like that etc etc etc

Will people never learn?

"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."

This post is utter total WTF.

And your posts there ^ is not stating the law it is giving an "alternative perspective" and saying yes see here women, it's not as simple as you think.

Yes total massive WTF all over the place and if you can't see why that say loads TBH.

Re: B-S is case law. You are welcome to research it if you wish. The relevant section of the link is reproduced here

It's not as simple as you think
I'm not being argumentative or misogynistic by saying that. It's fact. I know the law.

You know the law can (and is) misogynistic, and that's actually part of the point, right?

Someone on another thread has posted that there are other cases in the area where the rapists families have the children and the mums have to see them at the access centre.

Yes 100% WTF.

And there is a additional issue > past further harm to the victim of forcing them into a relationship with the rapists family >> that blood is often thicker than water. And where that may lead.

I am total WTF and telling women "It's not so simple" when their gut reaction is this is NOT right is what enables so much shit to continue.

IF society listened more to women then things woudl be a lot better lets be honest here.

Yes!
I'm challenging the narrative that the social workers are the ones responsible, that they 'gave' the rapist contact, that they 'failed' to make the application etc
Social workers have to work within the law. It's the courts who are responsible for this situation.

""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.""

This reads to me that

Women on here don't know the law (probably true for many)
That the rapist may have lovely family (yes sure)
Who the child could live with NONONO
And the fact that there may be a lovely mum that we are overlooking as a great person to care for the child (???) means that we are not thinking into the situaiton.

OR have I totally misread your post.

This happens.

I know somebody who was viciously attacked, beaten and raped. She was kept in a coma to recover, during this time it was discovered she was pregnant.

Her husband (bastard) sat beside her bed the whole time, saying the right things to the right people.

When she was strong enough, she tried to press charges. No one believed her.

When baby was born she tried to keep him away but he took her to court and said the brain injury from her "accident" makes her a danger to the baby.

Long story short, he has full custody.

She gets to see child six times a year supervised.

Disgusting.

Considering

A) the child loved with his father and grandparents for a while and experienced domestic violence in that family, possibly why he is having issues now

And

B) his fathers brother(s) and I think uncle were also charged in the same court case and were deeply involved in the CSE ring it is clear that even if that might be the case for some children it clearly wasn't here.

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately.

Lived not loved.

he 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

I missed who posted this

But the lovely mother is a bloody stranger...

Fucking hell.

& this

"the brain injury from her "accident" makes her a danger to the baby"

There was a study that showed that DV victims had brain injuries at a similar rate to boxers or something. And this needed to be recognised. As these injuries can affect behaviour and make people seem a bit off, unreliable, and of course this is then used to "show" that the woman is not a reliable witness / shoudl,n't have the kids etc.

The study said that victims of DV in this situaiton should have brain scans to look for damage IIRC.

It's like a double whammy isn't it. Awful.

The council had the ability within law to exclude the father
Rotherham council this is who have failed to protect children
What have they learned from the past
Nothing

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately.

Several of us have pointed this out. I mentioned the solicitor on the JV programme (and the MJ themselves) made this point.

Yes some people are still suggesting that this is not the case.

It IS*.

Yes vicky

he 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

I missed who posted this

But the lovely mother is a bloody stranger

I posted this. The mother is a member of the child's family of origin. This is the law. Take it up with the MoJ please! But the law is the law

Yes it's not as simple as you think you silly woman.

The council had the ability within the law to exclude the father and they had the evidence to show that they should. The question needs to be why they chose not to apply the exceptions appropriately

No, the council had the right to apply to the court for the court to decide whether to involve the father or not

Several of us have pointed this out. I mentioned the solicitor on the JV programme (and the MJ themselves) made this point

It's an application to be made to the court. Local authorities don't make this decision themselves

I am not talking about this particular case

I assumed that whoever posted it (you?) also wasnt talking about this particular case as it referred to 'might'

If id known who posted i could have checked the context

But out of context, the law...which i know is the law...doesnt make sense