Welcome to another week.
In an unusual decision by social services, a husband and child abuser who has been convicted of attacking a 13-year-old girl has been allowed to reside in the home of his partner and two daughters, both under the age of 13.
The local authority has allowed this measure on the condition that the children are locked in their bedroom at night, have a baby monitor on in their room so they can call their mother should they need to use the bathroom, and the partner himself must sleep on the far side of the mother’s bed so she can sense if he tries to get up in the middle of the night to go into the girls’ bedroom. The man in question is not the girls’ biological father. He is considered to be an ongoing risk to the children.
Our question to you then, is this: do you think this plan is in the best interests of the children, and do you think it would make a difference if the man in this case was their biological father?
Researching Reform 
Ridiculous ! Either the man is a sex offender who is not allowed to be with children or he is not.If he is not, then the mother not the ss or court should decide if and how they all live together
LikeLike
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
Yet another unbelievable decision by the SS. If this bloke had been the biological father, he probably would have been banned from living with them – yet live-in lovers have a far higher rate of offending than natural parents and he’s there! I suppose we don’t know the circumstances relating to his previous offence, or whether this was sexual abuse, but nevertheless this seems totally insane to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This of course isn’t the first we have heard of such lunacy by social services.
My own ex sister in law, who only missed being convicted with attempted manslaughter in that her brief managed to convince a jury that when she bludgeoned her eldest daughter half to death with a rocking horse, that it was an epilectic fit, seven children she had and all seven removed because of violent physical and sexual abuse, two years ago, [edited] social services gave her back three of them, even allowed the children to be taken from the foster home to visit the woman’s new husband in Wakefield jail where he was serving a sentence for violent crime and rape, six months ago they were removed again because of violence by the mother but social services are still working to a plan to reunite them. [edited] when I contacted them, they were so concerned and had spoken to the police about any possible harm to children in that family and remained to this day I believe the worst example of humanity they have had to deal with [edited].
You just couldn’t make it up with them, you really couldn’t.
What of the former counter terrorism officer, 53 years older than the child she was adopting, was sentenced to 18 months in prison but Essex council allowed the adoption to proceed and the revelation that this woman and her husband ticked nearly all “safeguard concerns” the adoption agencies were supposed to follow, a convicted criminal, a proven liar, a proven fraud, a former bankrupt and yet they gave this child to her and she was taken to visit her new mother in Holloway before her release.
My daughter couldn’t be a mother because she needed support and help to do so, she had never harmed her child but she did have severe learning difficulties that she was overcoming quite well with the first social worker, the evil cow that took over didn’t want to know and they just adopted her second son after refusing me custody of the elder boy and both boys are with people in their sixties, the elder has been reported to be continually unhappy, morose, depressed even, showing early signs of mental distress and potential illness and they will force this on him so these two old people can pretend to be mummy and daddy and because they have lots of money.
The Law Lords clarified in 2008 the bar parents had to reach, whether extra-family or not, in that the expectation was they should be “reasonable” parents, that social services were breaking the rules continually by setting the bar too high for family members to care for breakdowns and because the system is making so much money, only 12% of family applications for guardianships are successful and a lot of these applications are blocked because the local authority must make available a pot of money to the guardian to ensure they have all they need such as furniture, decent standard of home etc.
LikeLike
Apologies for the redactions, they were legally required.
LikeLike
And speaking of biological fathers was her considered as custodian if willing and fit?
LikeLike
I have found time and time again that Stepfathers seem to have more rights then the biological family and as far as I know there are no checks as such on stepfathers, and having spoken to the police it seems young single mothers are targeted by paedophiles. When a child is abused by a stepfather and finally accussed and sentenced the mother should receive the same sentence if not more, because from my point of view and speaking to women on the help line the bloody women put the men before the children if I had my way any women who allows her child to be abused my a stepfather or other should go to prison for life, then we have women who fall in love and have a baby in the hope of keeping the man when he has gone the women moves to another man and another baby comes along with many ending up in care,if i had my way no women should be allowed a child untill there is security in place not the social services in charge
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
I don’t know how I feel about this situation.
On the face of it anyone would be appalled. The safeguards in place are very overt and intrusive to a normal family life but the adults are both willing to accept that to live altogether with the children as a family. The children too will grow up knowing they have locks and alarms and outside intrusion and will know the reason why as they get older. I wonder what the children will think as they get older and how many times that knowledge would be thrown in their faces when they are full of teenage angst. I have to ask myself why they would want to put themselves through all that! In answering it would be to keep the family together! I also wonder WHO they are for such a situation to be accepted by the usually not so family friendly SS!
Many families are living with paedophiles unknown to them and their own children are never at risk. Despite the fact they would never touch their own children they may be a risk to others. The SS have put in safeguards to eliminate opportunist threats to other children. However if one is hell bent on doing something no safeguards would stop one. The risk of losing his family may be enough of a deterrent and I’m sure too he would be under supervision for his mental health.
Paedophila is now recognised as a mental disorder under the DSM 5. This case should open the gates for all those denied or being denied their children who have other disorders under the DSM 5. How many times have we heard that because the mum has a personality disorder she cannot look after the child but in reality she could with a little support or as research in America has shown, with no support! (NCCPR)
I welcome that alternatives are being tried to keep kids out of the care system which I feel damages and stigmatises them more, as well as alienates them from parents and siblings. This case may prove to be a breakthrough to get children back home!
LikeLike
A step closer to legalising child rape.
LikeLike
This is a very ill-advised and ill-informed decision to expose these children to such a high risk. Apparently they do not know that child sexual abuse also occurs during daylight hours and that children cannot be expected to protect each other in such circumstances. Nor can they withstand the grooming and manipulations of a child sex offender, (as some lawyers and judges can’t as can be frequently seen in the courts).
Child rape and sexual abuse are not sudden, opportunistic offences – they are pre-meditated and planned, as are all of the denials and excuses if discovered. There is immense cunning and deception involved by the predator, to mislead people about their true intent and sexual preferences, and to hide their activities (the classic Jekyll & Hyde character). Children are frequently threatened with being killed or their mothers being killed if they disclose, or made to feel guilty that the family would be broken up and they would be put in care, if they report the abuse. No child can cope with that amount of guilt and projected responsibility.
Mothers such as this do not understand that with such adults, sex with children is their primary sexual preference, although they may engage also in hetero- and/or homosexual activities, usually as a deception to hide his main purpose. In a case in which I am currently advising there is also bestiality where the offender is seeking to engage the child in sexual activities with animals. So the sexual relationship this male is engaging with this mother is not his primary preference, the children are his target.
A number of such child rapists and sex offenders are also now engaged in video-recording their activities and selling such recordings on the Internet for very large sums of money. Child porn on the Internet and its financial returns are now far greater than the returns on drug dealing. (ask any police officer engaged in investigating such criminal behaviours).
I’m afraid the risks to these girls are far too great for them to be left in the same household as this adult, and it does appear that he has very successfully groomed the professionals involved and others and is manipulating them for his own purposes.
LikeLike
MYTHS AND REALITIES REGARDING CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
CSA Myth 1: The consequences of child sex abuse ‘may well be as serious’ as disruption of a relationship with a parent.
CSA Reality 1: There is a strong body of research evidence of severe deleterious effects of parental child sex abuse including developmental PTSD (Zlotnick et al 1996) & suicide (Beckinsale et al 1999) which is not matched in evidence regarding loss of a relationship with a parent (Amato 1993).
CSA Myth 2: Children are safe from child sex offenders if there is more than one child present.
CSA Reality 2: Offenders can exploit the presence of other children to obtain co-operation in offending activities eg. by ‘normalizing’ the behaviour; inducing children to abuse each other for the gratification of the offender or as a means of enforcing silence by manipulating children to believe that they are ‘as guilty as’ the offender.
CSA Myth 3: The presence of a supervising adult prevents the risk of sex abuse.
CSA Reality 3: Many victims report being abused in the presence of others. Queensland teacher Bill D’Arcy fondled children in class behind his desk. Offenders reported that sitting with a child watching television was a common offending opportunity. Swimming and car-rides also offered opportunities to have concealed physical contact with the child (Smallbone & Wortley 2001).
CSA Myth 4: A child sex target can have a loving positive relationship with the perpetrator parent.
CSA Reality 4: ‘Grooming’ is a key element of offending behaviour which enables the offender to (1) gain access to the target (2) induce the target to accept and keep silent about the offending behaviour(Smallbone & Wortley 2001). This commonly includes lavishing positive attention on the child whilst gradually pressing sexual boundaries. Victims report being made to feel ‘special’ by their perpetrators (Briggs 1995). Perpetrator parents exploit the child’s need for parental love and betray the parental relationship for personal gratification.
CSA Myth 5: Children can be easily induced to make false allegations of sexual abuse.
CSA Reality 5: Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse can take many forms including sexualised behaviour, injuries and infections , drawings, verbal statements – usually to a person they perceive as safe and trustworthy, such as non-offending primary caregivers (typically mothers). Lack of knowledge about sex, fears of the perpetrator, of not being believed, of consequences threatened by the perpetrator, shame and guilt are common reasons for silence or retraction of allegations. Research consistently points to over 90% of allegations having a factual basis (Brown et al 2001).
CSA Myth 6: Children can benefit from a relationship with a parent who is sexually abusing them.
CSA Reality 6: The parental relationship is an additional risk factor in assessing the severity of child sex abuse sequelae for victims due to (1) the betrayal & exploitation of the child’s trust (2) repeat opportunities for offending & lack of safety over time (3) the dominant presence and role of a parent in a child’s life (4) the loss or disruption of the child’s relationship with the non-offending parent either as part of the grooming process or through court orders.
Dr Elspeth McInnes AOM (2013)
LikeLike