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?

Not - having read mine back through, can I clarify that I think you're walking a delicate line well so far.

The law has been more shit in the past Repeal. I think we're expected to be ever-so-grateful for the short reprieve while they roll it backwards nowadays (nothing doing).

I have just had a big row with DH over the reporting of this case and some of the terminology used. He watched the Victoria Derbyshire programme and both her and the woman involved used the term “custody”. I said that this is the wrong term and that they should have used parental responsibility instead. Also is “custody” even used these days? I thought that we now say residency. As the “father” will hopefully be in prison for a long time, residency wouldn’t happen anyway, would it? So we are talking about PR.

Sorry to nit pick in this way. I know that the issue here is huge, but I want to resolve our rather stupid argument. We are both too stubborn for our own good!

So when I write to the MoJ what am I saying/asking for?

What is it Sammy wants?

Personally I think PR should be terminated if you’ve gathered a child via rape, convicted of a crime against a child or their mother and/or been sentenced to more than x years in prison.

Obviously what I’d really like to write is sort your shit out you bunch of misogynists, but what would actually be constructive?

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

That is NOT what I have been doing.

is “custody” even used these days? I thought that we now say residency

Residency is out of use now. Custody doesn't exist in law. Legal orders are made to outline arrangements for a child (child arrangements order) to include where the child will sleep on what nights, who the child has contact with, who can make decisions about medical treatment and under which circumstances, who can take the child out of the country etc

Furthermore, there was never a question of the child, then a teen, going to live with a father who was in prison. Talk of custody is completely inappropriate. I have already explained why he was contacted, it would have been to have the opportunity to share his views and potentially put forward family members for assessment, not to have care of the child himself.

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????

She said it was with family members of the rapists, not the rapists themselves. Which makes the whole thing more difficult. If the mother isn't able to look after the child herself, someone else has to do it. I can certainly envisage situations where it wouldn't be at all desirable to have family members of the rapist father do it, but it's also perfectly possible that it would be someone like a cousin who's not had any input into his upbringing and who doesn't support what he's done. It's not like the care system does a stunning job of protecting children who are placed within the foster system either.

Anyway, I'd say the one thing this whole thing has made clear is that we could do with a law change. The current system does provide a framework for applications to be made, but contrary to some of the claims made, it's not some commonplace box ticking exercise. It's also not guaranteed to be successful either: the Transparency Project pointed out that we don't actually know whether the council did apply or not. They have said themselves that they welcome the debate, which is quite significant in itself actually.

Also, MN should probably change the title of this thread because it's just wrong.

Thanks for the clarification NotANotMan

Gawd they asked him to apply for custody

I understand he was sentenced to 35 years - how does that work then?

The whole thing beggars belief.

Saw it this morning on Victoria Derbyshire.

Brave brave woman to come forward and make herself known to the public.

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

This is unfair. Not has been clarifying the law in a factual sense, and quite clearly said they believed the law to be wrong.

RC didn't ask him to apply for custody.

Its in the guidelines that you cannot be abusive so possibly taking some time to try and sound reasonable would be a good idea repeal

Under the circumstances in this case, if I was the social worker, I would be strongly advocating not to contact the father as not being in the child's interests. (The courts sadly aren't very interested in what is in the Mother's interests) but I would have to be directed by the court and guided by our solicitor. The social worker has little power in a situation like this.

The courts sadly aren't very interested in what is in the Mother's interests

To avoid a conflict of interests, I guess ?

Well, the children act prioritises the child's interests above all. The courts definitely haven't caught up with the news that having their mother traumatised by being forced to hand their child over to an abusive father isn't actually in the child's interests. Cafcass have developed some guidance on it but they are a bit toothless too and will often recommend the easiest option (the one a risk averse judge is most likely to agree, which is usually some kind of contact with the father, as judges are very wary of shutting off contact entirely)

Is this child in LA care?

If so why? The council it appears has tried to follow the letter of the law in notifying all "concerned "parties when a child goes into care albeit a bonkers decision given he is in prison .

Wonder why he is in care and not with such a model citizen as his mum?

The courts definitely haven't caught up with the news that having their mother traumatised by being forced to hand their child over to an abusive father isn't actually in the child's interests.

Some form of contact does not equate to 'handing a child over to an abusive father'.

Model,citizen copper?
You being fucking serious or just a random fuckwit who forget how to use their brain

Gosh no I think she's an amazing advocate.

Just wonder why her son is in care - I think the council have been very blinkered but clearly they followed the letter of the law in notifying his father albeit a bonkers decision. But I guess the law is the law and yes it needs changing.

Your last sentence did not imply it
It came across as sneering
And google is your friend on why she asked for help with her son who has complex needs

God no. I was in care by 11. But my boy (now adult!)!had complex needs too.

my personal feelings aside,

reading the whole thread - i have to say notanotman is factually accurate.

its the law that needs to change but for now what the council did was exactly what they had to do - i think the headlines are misleading - custody wasn't asked for or granted, nor was contact from my understanding. This seems to be more a frenzy about what is perceived as could have happened , than did happen.

Some form of contact does not equate to 'handing a child over to an abusive father'

What do you think contact is? It's not weekly telephone calls. Contact is almost always face to face and unsupervised.

What do you think contact is? It's not weekly telephone calls. Contact is almost always face to face and unsupervised

Obviously there are different kinds of contact. Some form of contact are your words from above. If there is an abusive father than it is open for the Court to order supervised contact.

But coming back to the example you cite, where a traumatised mother is handing the child over to an abusive father is such where the interests of the mother and child are as one.

But you dodge my comment as to conflict of interests. Where you have a conflict of interests between the mother and the child then where are you ? To adapt your example, you have a traumatised mother forced to hand child to a father where there is no finding of the court that he has been abusive. What do you think the court should do in that situation ?

The courts will always prioritise the needs of the child. I didn't dodge the question, I answered it already in the post you responded to. The children act makes it clear that the child's needs are paramount.

Yes that's the current law. But you were lamenting the fact that the Court aren't interested with the mother's interests.