Monday, 17 December, 2018 @ 04:11:04

Author Topic: Rotherham  (Read 212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maik

  • Administrator
  • Forum Deity
  • *****
  • Posts: 15021
Rotherham
« on: Wednesday, 28 November, 2018 @ 11:37:19 »
Quote
Rotherham rape victim reveals new care scandal
Mother demands change in law after council gave abuser chance to meet her son

A rape victim at the centre of a care scandal demanded a shake-up of the law last night after revealing that Rotherham council had invited her jailed abuser to seek access to her son.

Arshid Hussain, a serial rapist and the ringleader of a child-grooming gang, had no parental responsibility for the child but social workers contacted him in prison to give him the chance to stake a claim in the boy’s future.

The boy’s mother, Sammy Woodhouse, waived her anonymity by posting videos on social media yesterday. She called for new rules to “ensure that no rapist will ever be able to access a child conceived through rape of abuse."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rotherham-council-invited-paedophile-to-see-his-victim-s-child-jntcgdv3t


Offline Bryan-in-Kilkis

  • Global Moderator
  • Forum Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 190
Re: Rotherham
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, 29 November, 2018 @ 15:56:13 »
Absolutely despicable.  I despair of Britain. :oki:

Offline TonyKath

  • Global Moderator
  • Forum Deity
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
Re: Rotherham
« Reply #2 on: Friday, 30 November, 2018 @ 00:28:15 »
It's more complicated than it looks. The news has tried to get to grips with it but not quite got there. The mother has bravely waived her anonymity and some of the story is lnown. A long time ago I worked in this field.

The mother had requested Rotherham council to take the boy into care as she couldn't manage him. The Children Act 1989 (and amendments) requires the council to attempt to find a family solution to the situation. This means notifying everyone who has or potentially could have parental responsibility under the act. So a putative father would have to be automatically included even though he was not married to the mother, named on the birth certificate or granted a parental responsibility order by a court. The council then only have a responsibility to assess which in this case means doing nothing.  This is how the law stands with "public law" cases. With "private law" i. e. matrimonial cases (etc) this does not arise as only people with PR have a standing in the court apart from exceptional cases where the court can give special dispensation e. g. to grandparents.

Not a case of a stupid council but of law that needs tidying up.


Tony
« Last Edit: Friday, 30 November, 2018 @ 00:33:46 by TonyKath »

Offline Maik

  • Administrator
  • Forum Deity
  • *****
  • Posts: 15021
Re: Rotherham
« Reply #3 on: Friday, 30 November, 2018 @ 02:04:11 »
Thanks for that, Tony.

Quote
Last year Rotherham council told Arshid Hussain – the ringleader of a child abuse gang who was jailed for 35 years in 2016 – that he could seek visits from Woodhouse’s son as part of family court proceedings to take the child into care, the Times reported.

However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said local authorities could apply to courts to request permission not to notify parents without parental responsibility about care proceedings.

Rotherham council suggested it was not aware of this exemption and asked for clarity on the law.

An MoJ spokesman said the right of councils not to tell a parent about care proceedings had been established in case law.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/28/mps-call-for-change-of-law-on-rapist-fathers-after-rotherham-case


Not sure why it's being publicised now when it happened last year, which is when the right of councils not to tell a parent about care proceedings was established in case law. Perhaps it needs to be made clearer and made better known to e.g. local councils.


https://sammywoodhouse.com

Offline TonyKath

  • Global Moderator
  • Forum Deity
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
Re: Rotherham
« Reply #4 on: Saturday, 01 December, 2018 @ 15:22:58 »
Very interesting Maik. My comment was based on a BBC TV News report and interview with the mother.  The Grauniad covers the story with forensic thoroughness - not surprising given the number of social workers and family law practitioners who read the paper.

I certainly wasn't aware of the Re CD court judgement last year which allows a court to exempt councils from notifying fathers without PR in circumstances such as these. I would certainly expect the council's lawyers to know about it - whether in-house or a contracted in private firm.

The TV report led me to believe that the mother had approached the council voluntarily to request that they "accommodate" her son, i.e. take him into care. The Guardian is clear that this is a council application to a court for a Care Order inder the Act.  This suggests there are important facts not in the public domain as the council has to prove that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer "significant harm", which is quite a high threshold. .  It is well established in case law that the presence of a child abuser in the household, such as Hussain would fulfill the significant harm test - though of course this is not the issue here. One odd thing in this case is that in my experience it is unusual for a council to "accommodate" a teenager, let alone apply for a Care Order.

The reaility is that a particularly nasty abuser like Hussain would never be allowed within a million miles of this kid or any other.  Like you Maik I'm not sure why there is so much grandstanding, though it is right that a rather technical legal point is cleared up.


Tony
« Last Edit: Saturday, 01 December, 2018 @ 15:25:54 by TonyKath »