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?

Thread with link to Sammy's petition:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3437221-Sammy-Woodhouse

@sawdust that's a misrepresentation. I stated that in cases of DV perpetrated by the father there is a presumption that it is in the child's interests to have contact despite it being very detrimental to the mother. My assertion is that it is NOT necessarily in the child's interests for the mother to be further traumatised and abused by being forced to co-parent with the abuser.

I don't think the rights are competing in many cases but the courts haven't yet caught up on current thinking about contact where DV is evidenced and still order contact even when the children are old enough to report what is happening. The presumption that a father is a positive role in a child's life even if they are abusive to the mother is incorrect, in my (and experts') view.

The presumption that a father is a positive role in a child's life even if they are abusive to the mother is incorrect, in my (and experts') view.

Is there really such a presumption, I wondered to myself ? As Google is a friend, I gave it my best and I have found this below. You might be familiar with the Family Practice Rules. In particular, there is Practice Direction 12J dealing with domestic violence. There Para 7 reads as follows

In proceedings relating to a child arrangements order, the court presumes that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The court must in every case consider carefully whether the statutory presumption applies, having particular regard to any allegation or admission of harm by domestic abuse to the child or parent or any evidence indicating such harm or risk of harm.

I may not have your background, but it seems to me that this contradicts your understanding of the way courts are asked to decide matters ?

It is time for feminist revolution.

There should be NO possibility at all for it to even be suggested that a rapist have access to his victim's baby.

I am not too fond of this nonsense laws that give males access to children they contributed nothing but sperm to.

Children may have an inherent need to know who their father is, but I don't buy they profit from contact to a random stranger who just happens to be their genetic father.

I may not have your background, but it seems to me that this contradicts your understanding of the way courts are asked to decide matters?

Not really, as you say, you don't have my background.

Cafcass and women's aid published some joint research and guidance last year in recognition of the fact that children and women were being harmed by direct/unsupervised contact being recommended.

www.cafcass.gov.uk/2017/07/25/cafcass-womens-aid-collaborate-domestic-abuse-research/

The threshold of evidence that contact with the father isn't in the child's interests seems really high. I know a family in a situation like this and of course it's mums job to manage the emotional fall out from her child's dad insisting on his right to access while not actually giving a shit about the child's wellbeing.

What NotANotMan is saying is correct in my experience.
It is also true if there have been child protection issues, but that is a whole other story.

Sorry, when I read it back I was out of order.

The threshold of evidence that contact with the father isn't in the child's interests seems really high

Much too high.

I somewhere read about a case where a man was allowed to raise a baby he had wanted the mother to abort. After the kid had already been put up for adoption and spent the first year of life with a lovely couple of adoptive parents, the glorified sperm donor demanded the child be handed to him because he hadn't been asked for permission for the adoption.

After trying to get the mother to abort the pregnancy and then not being in the child's life AT ALL.

It is crazy.

The court have no say because the 'child' is 17