Well I really can' t believe this - on the news this morning !

"Sammy Woodhouse revealed that the man who raped her as part of a grooming gang was told he could apply for parental rights over her son, while serving a 35-year prison sentence."

Where is the justice , logic , or fairness in that ???????

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...se-victim-son-sexual-abuse-a8656116.html

sick

It was said it is for his human rights , you have to be human to have human rights ! Pure madness, this country is going to the dogs.

Heard it on the news from a few different channels today, so I haven't read your link Venice. One report said it was someone from the Local Authority Social Services dept. who proposed the idea, not the father asking.

Complete and utter lunacy and beneficial to nobody. That poor woman having to go through more trauma, as if she hasn't had enough. Just more legal costs paid for by the tax payer.

If they put firm rules down its not going to work, its a case where common sense should apply but formalising common sense is near enough impossible and who is going to investigate was is the truth?

What if step-siblings want to have access?

What about grand-parents and other close relatives?

What about someone totally unrelated that unofficially brought the child up as their own? What about other members of that family.

Giving a mother the right to totally block out who she chooses just by making a claim of abuse will lead to a lot of problems, many separations are messy and full of spite.

Its hardly a secret that the family courts and various other children's services are already heavily biased against male parents, or even males in general. This would be yet another one-sided situation.

My own experience of the family courts was appalling with no real opportunity for me to challenge outright lies (by both the other party and court officials) nor able to challenge breach of process by the court officials until after the event.

Many of the stories on fathers-for-justice are heart breaking.

I am constantly amazed at the brilliant insights one reads here by people who are absolutely clear about exactly what should be done, despite the fact that they know nothing whatsoever about it except what is published in third-rate newspapers attempting to boost their flagging sales.

What a pity these opinions are not listened to by the law makers. Instead decisions are made by people on the feeble excuse that they have investigated and heard both sides of the argument and have had years of experience in wading through the lies and half truths of people caught up in these disputes, know the law and have seen the outcomes of various decisions.

I am always suspicious of people who go to the press in matters like this.

Yeats' words from "The Second Coming" come to mind:

"..The best lack all conviction, while the worst ... Are full of passionate intensity."

Amazed you might be, but I can't see anyone saying 'what should be done' in this case.

There's nothing more simple than understanding that a male paedophile, who raped numerous children, given 35 yrs prison sentence (which would indicate how serious this case was against children) got at least one girl pregnant who since had the courage to go public, and this animal is now applying for access to his son,
He will have rights to say what happens to his son, and could lead to multiple problems. Maybe this child would NOT want to see a convicted rapist and paedophile as a father.

Law makers have no right to make a decision for a child in such an horrific case. It's almost as bad as the rape of the mother.

Or maybe some think the child should have been aborted ! Get rid of the evidence, get rid of the problem.. ?

I had great trouble understanding what the article said as they are trying to imply much more than what has happened.

From what I gleaned....

This particular case is about whether the father should be informed if there are any court cases over the child. The unspoken implication is that there has been a court case that the father didn't raise, perhaps an adoption by the mother's partner?

The father has been informed that he could apply for access, but that is true of anyone on the planet, of course anyone can apply, how could you possibly be stopped from applying? You fill in the form and hand it in.

There is an arbitrary protection system in place to prevent "wrongful" applications, but this is where the article gets extremely confusing, I assume the father was informed of the court case but that does not mean he has permission to respond to the court, if he had wanted to respond to the court then the protection system would be used to block him.

Overall as written, it makes this a none-news page filler.

There is surely a difference between a rapist and a father.

Precisely my point Granny. We know you can't.

It is likely a lot more complex than what you've been told in your daily rag.

I think I read somewhere that the man's son had an expressed a wish to meet him.

I don't know what Justice Granny would have to say about that.

Must have been in your daily rag !

Think Id be pleased if the rapist had NO rights over how any child born from his crime is brought up . Yes Id have told him about any court cases concerning them etc , but in my book he'd have forfeited any rights to having his views taken into consideration. ----- Then I suddenly realize Im only thinking of a stranger raping someone , and decision making is suddenly far less clear if its a husband raping a wife for instance , and there are existing children who love both of them equally , and grannies and grandads etc --- A much harder call.


On the point of abortion granny , I believe that is the sole choice of the mother to make , as long as she is acting within the framework of the law. Imagine after a violent , frightening , disgusting, demeaning and possibly lengthy mentally scarring form of rape, being forced to carry the seed of that person inside you and feel it growing bigger . Has to be the victims decision surely . Chances are if they were going to abort , they would be doing it very early on after conception , which gives me far less concern than at the other end of the legal timescale.

Must have been in your daily rag !