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 sake
I work in this area. The law is complex and as you rightly point out most people won't know it. Why would they if they don't work in social work or family law?

What do you want me to say? The law is wrong? Yes! The law should be ignored? Obviously not!

And the council didn't bother with this.

I expect they had reasons that silly women won't be able to comprehend.

We get so "emotional" about this sort of thing.

But the local authorities didn’t approach the court
A social worker approached the rapist father in prison and asked him if he wanted parental rights
Why did the local authorities not approach the court before the sw approach the rapist father

Family law is applied in ways which oppress women and children all the time And it's a travesty. Abusive fathers are given contact over and over even when they continue to abuse the children contact is not stopped.

But the law is the law. Many posters on this thread clearly (and reasonably) have no idea why this scenario arose and whose responsibility it was.

And the council didn't bother with this.

I expect they had reasons that silly women won't be able to comprehend

We get so "emotional" about this sort of thing.

But the local authorities didn’t approach the court A social worker approached the rapist father in prison and asked him if he wanted parental rights Why did the local authorities not approach the court before the sw approach the rapist father

The case was already in proceedings. The decision to contact the father would have been taken as part of the proceedings and the social worker would have been acting on the advice of their solicitor.

not

Im assuming that the 'for fucks sake' comment isnt directed to me

No, at nothingonthetellyagain

Notaman
Why are the MOJ this morning saying the authorities/ council could have gone to court about this ?

As in here for example link

Someone on the other thread pointed out that the council weren't so hot on applying the law when they had massive child sex abuse rings operating in their area.

They have a legal duty to protect children or similar, I assume?

Maybe someone can help on this point.

So parents have rights. Great. But the rapist is NOT a 'parent'!!

Miranda - the law does not agree with you, sadly. If the birth father's identity is known, he has presumptive parental responsibility for the purposes of legal proceedings

He's not on the birth certificate so is he legally the father?

Its nice youve stopped for fucks saking not

As your posts are interesting and I dont think anyone is intending to have a go at you, if thats what you feel was happening . Its more frustration

The general view of family lawyers (rarely fans of councils) is that in this instance the council social workers have not got it wrong.

"Practice Direction 12C to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (paragraph 3.1 to be precise – read it here), which makes it mandatory for a local authority applying for care orders (as it appears this local authority was) to formally notify a father of the existence of proceedings – even one who was not married to the mother and has no parental responsibility – and even one who is as dangerous and unpleasant as this one appears to have been. No ‘decision’. No perversity. No appalling insensitivity on the part of a local authority."

It is for Parliament to change the law , and the M of Justice to look at the practice direction; this is where any ire should be laid

Does the MOJ give guidelines to the law ?

Oh crooked post

Crossed

Oh god just reread my post

How rude am i?

You wanna fucks sake not you bloody well fucks sake

Sorry

He's not on the birth certificate so is he legally the father?

That's irrelevant. If the mother names him as the father he is considered as if he has PR

Sorry Rufus I just really resent being charged with being patronising and misogynistic when I'm trying to give more context to the situation. Let's not forget this journo was the one who 'exposed' the 'Muslim foster carers' story which turned out to be a load of racist bullshit

There is more in The Times today - main front page story:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rotherham-council-invited-paedophile-to-see-his-victim-s-child-jntcgdv3t?shareToken=935425179d176ab96d81ea7eccd70195

Leading article

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-sammy-woodhouse-and-the-rotherham-care-scandal-bdt6wtvss?shareToken=40468ce6f6ea1fac535ebb5baabb221e

There's also a letter which I can't link to - I'll put it in a separate post.

Letter from today's Times, referring to yesterday's article (ie the link in the OP)

^
‘RIGHTS’ OF OFFENDERS
Sir, Your reportt_ “Jailed rapist given chance to see his victim’s child” (Nov 27) vividly illustrates the perverse contemporary fashions and ideologies underpinning the notion that perpetrators are “victims” and hence deserve equal status to those whom they abuse. Such notions are not uncommon among a range of professionals charged with the care and protection of abused victims. Politicians have created the legal and social frameworks in which such repugnant theories thrive and to which professionals are required to adhere.
Robin SeQueira
Former director of social services, Dorset County Council^

So the best thing for these girls to do would have been not report the rapes or go to court

Then the men would not have pR ( if they could get away at that point)