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?

Yes, I suppose so. It's horrendous

So this can be used as an extra threat

If you report me
Everyone will know I am father and I will have rights
You will never get away
I can have access to the kid and if it's a girl well that's excellent
The law will be on my side

That would be very effective

i just really resent being charged with being patronising and misogynistic when I'm trying to give more context to the situation

I cant blame you at all, and the context is incredibly important

I think a lot of people realise that its the law...and why would the law be set up to clarify an issue that shouldn't bloomin' arise in the first place...its just such a stupid situation

As the family courts are private, we don't know whether this was asked for and denied or not. But we do! Hussein did not ask and when offered turned down the chance to establish his parental rights.

Rotherham Council have said, today to BBC reporters, that they were just following the law but have, so far, not acknowledged that they could have made a different decision.

The MoJ, also today to BBC reporters, have NOT confirmed tha there is a law that means all parents, even violent raping ones, MUST be contacted, but have confirmed that Rotherham Council could have asked for this to be set aside.

So someone somewhere made the decision not to use an apparently common place mechanism to ask a judge for permission to not contact Hussein - despite knowing all of the details, including the fact that child wanted no contact and has even given evidence against his father's family members!

Story on World At One just now with Sammy Woodhouse being impressive and a judge being complacent. Starts at about 30 minutes 12 seconds in:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001b8x

Lisa Muggeride has a video about the law and the responsibility it bears for children, and how in centring the child it often causes vast harm to Mothers

Not read the whole thread, but the point about this happening up and down the country is true. Parental responsibility gives abusers a green light to continue to harass the mother and re-traumatise her, supported by the courts in the ‘best interests of the child’.

The law as a whole needs overhauling. I applaud the victim for speaking out and it is a chink of light in this sad story that her rapist did not take up social services offer and that this flaw in the law is coming to light.

I want to know how many women have had to deal with this.

I think it is great that sammy has come forward.

I think it is great that she is so high profile.

I imagine that her son is nearly 18 is a factor.
I mean before she probably had to be quiet because it could have put her and her relationship with her children at risk.

I imagine any other women who come forward will be in trouble because of family court secrecy - is that right?

Exactly this katara the MN relationships board is full of fathers using the courts to continue to abuse mothers and this is disregarded because the focus is the child.

So this can be used as an extra threat

If you report me
Everyone will know I am father and I will have rights
You will never get away
I can have access to the kid and if it's a girl well that's excellent
The law will be on my side

Chilling. The law needs changing. Also, what the hell is going on in Yorkshire? I wouldn't want to be raising children there.

God I didn't know that. It is absolutely chilling

ineedacupofcoffeedesperatley wheres that from?

NotANotMan

Am I missing something - is this child almost 18 years old ? Why are there care proceedings in the first place.

Hearings to do with child welfare, including in divorce proceedings and in this case care proceedings, are private. Judgements are also private unless there is a point of law or precedent which means they are made public. Even then names are anonymised (although I imagine the details would make the people identifiable to those who know them).

I do not know if you are in contempt of court if you speak out about what happens in a hearing, I will be asking my lawyer that.

But it is a forum for abuse to continue to happen - and for the judges to also abuse the lawyers and the litigants behind closed doors (my solicitor said it is the only forum where you are allowed to be insulted in professional proceedings). There is little awareness of domestic abuse and coercive control - although in the case of this thread, the background should have been a huge red flag. But the law prioritises a child’s contact with their non-resident parent and the burden of proof that this is unsafe is on the resident parent, even if there has been police and family protection involvement.

In care proceedings as above, the issue I think revolves on the fact that both parents have a chance to make representations and be involved in decisions. PR gives them that right.

Convoluted post, I am sorry, very tired.

I believe the incident happened a few years ago when he was a young teen.

Why are there care proceedings in the first place. At his mother's request. She says he is a very troubled kid and she was/is trying to get him all the help that is out there. It is common to push for this as a child gets closer to 18 as some adult help is more easily accessed if there is existing provision / history of need.

Instead what she got was a letter to his father asking him if he wanted to take on parental responsibility!

Instead what she got was a letter to his father asking him if he wanted to take on parental responsibility!

Just what every troubled young person needs - visiting their rapist father in prison.

This isn't happening now

I think that is what is causing some confusion!

It happened last year and she has just now chosen to waive their rights to anonymity!

During a hearing last year the boy's mother was told that the convicted sex offender would be allowed to attend court and make legal representations.

This isn't happening now

Ah... newspapers desperately seeking things to write about.

No, her video went out yesterday/today. She has just waived her right to anonymity in order to try and raise awareness. Newspapers SHOULD be printing this and the good ones are printing the full details, including the timescale and reasons!

It’s all the papers and the news channels as it should

NotANotMan

Thank you for clarifying what most women already know - that the law is not on our side, is deeply misogynistic, and that for women there is no such thing as justice in this country.

Please don't cross over the line into defending this situation on a feminist chat site.

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.

WTAF

Has the law always been this shit or is it due to campaigning by the F4J arsewipes?

I’m very familiar with courts ordering contact with fathers even when there’s a history of DA but when they’re serving 35 years for being a paedophile????