Time together as a couple advice

[May12345]

Well everyone had visit from SW tonight and he's completely messed my mind up!!! I can see this going to court now from his stance tonight. He definitely had a hidden agenda and I told him I could tell. He's putting pressure on me to decide and say whether I want husband home or not when I've told him I want to aim for supervising and see how I feel. I don't want to HAVE to make my mind up right now and I'm under pressure. He said it's not fair on the kids for me to supervise for x amount of time then decide in the future to give our relationship another go! I gave him one of his stupid analogues that he always uses on me 'what if Lucy down the road splits with Andy and they live separately still in love but want their own space. Then after two years he moves home how is that not fair on the kids?' but of course this is a different situation. I am not going to say I want him home at present. I am only focusing on supervision for jow and good thing is he has referred me for the LF course including the report so that's good and will be funded. Then he actually started saying about my husband doing work and courses! He has done all that were previously said and no more were recommended by the Psychologist. I asked what courses he wants him to do he said he didn't know. I asked if they'd fund inform plus with Lucy Faithfull he said no!
It was obvious that CS are viewing the risk of reoffending online as medium because the Dr had made it that with over the recommended alcohol intake. No matter that that is totally incorrect! He gets up at 4.30 every morning for work and can have an alcohol test at work anytime and lose his job if he was drinking. His solicitor actually said that the report is the best result he could have had and his probation officer knows he hasn't got a drink problem yet still they've manufactured this! Interestingly CS haven't offered alcohol tests! They're clutching to the medium risk and now saying CS can't let someone who is a sexual risk to children live with children. I told him you've known from the start he was a risk we all have! So why suddenly say that now! He also started using an analogy of him wanting to be a footballer then realising he can't be one as an example to me to rethink our relationship. It's almost laughable. I really feel this needs to be decided by a judge now. I really need my solicitors advice next week before the PLO Tuesday but I will not be saying I want him home. My only goal atm is to supervise once I have shown by evidence that I can protect the children.

[DD2SS]

Hi May,

Unfortunately I can't write too much this evening but I did want to say: keep calm! It is good that they are making the referral for you too. You are sounding very reasonable indeed: you are taking things step-by-step, where your relationship is a secondary issue to i) protecting the children; iii) doing the extra work required; and iii) ensuring that kids have a meaningful relationship with their dad.

You should definitely speak to your lawyer and get some sort of strategy together. You need to be really clear thinking on the issue of risk, which is the core issue in this case. The main risk here is the risk that your husband poses to your children, which has been deemed to be low and the risk of contact offending unlikely. This is completely different to the risk of online reoffending, which is not a direct risk to your children. Of course, if he were to reoffend, then that might alter other aspects of risk. But it is not directly relevant to the issue in hand, namely his contact arrangements with the kids.

As I say, keep going, you are doing all the right things!

[May12345]

Thank you so much DD2SS that helped to clarify. I'm struggling to see how him reoffending could pose a risk to our children but if that ever happened there would not be a second chance! My husband knows this and never wants to reoffend. Saying that I will never completely relax again. The SW actually said he poses a sexual risk to the kids surely from the start or when he was convicted in January they knew he posed a risk. Theyve said its about if its managed or not. Surely if he's not reoffending it is managed by him and my children's safety is managed by me my close relationship with them, open communication, having other confidantes for them, good support network including with school, myself knowing the signs of grooming, child abuse, online safety I'm very hot on that and they respect and understand the boundaries. I also am aware of the signs now that he was offending though I obviously wasn't at the time.
I think in the PLO I need to mention the direct sexual risk he poses but will definitely speak to my solicitor Monday. BTW is a lawyer better than a solicitor? Can a second risk assessment opinion be funded by legal aid? It's around £2500 but we'd find it if we had to. Do CS ever let a SO reside with his family? I feel they are calling my bluff that if they say it can't happen it can't happen when ultimately that would be for a judge to decide. As long as I am keeping the children safe I hope that they can't use this against me if I did decide to reunite. Thankyou again.

[PerfectlySafeDad]

I'm under the impression that 'risk of re-offending' (where the offences are viewing images on the internet) is viewed by the entire safeguarding brigade as absolutely no different to risk of contact offence, or risk of any kind of sexual offence whatsoever including to one's own children. I hope I'm wrong, indeed I pray daily that they have more intelligence than that, but from every conversation I've ever had or witnessed or read on child safety I fear they don't.

[Miserylovescompany2]

Hello May

Can I suggest you write the conversation between the SW and yourself down. Then from that create an email asking for clarity around certain things the SW has said. Ask for a more detailed explanation especially around open ended statements. Politely request a written response.

This change of tactic has come straight after you've requested additional funding. You are not jumping into any long term decisions and are clearly prioritising your children.

What the SW has said could be a scare tactic? I have always found it useful to remove the words and look at the actions. Do the two marry up?

If a SW makes a statement then I think they should be able to give a clear explanation as to how they arrived at that conclusion.

As an aside if there is anything in the forensic psychologists report that you feel is not correct/factual - you have a legal right to challenge this. Usually a report would be sent out initially in draft form for you to check and have the opportunity to challenge. I don't think it would do any harm to make enquires into this. Because if you are able to challenge the part around alcohol for example of even get additional information added then that will made a difference.

[DD2SS]

Hi May,

Solicitors and barristers are both types of lawyer - I'm using lawyer to mean solicitor here.

As I say, I'm not sure that a second opinion is necessary - the psychologist is broadly supportive of your case, although you might not see it like that at the moment. This is something you should take legal advice on. The issue is interpreting what he has said, and the argument here is that a risk of reoffending does not equal a risk of harm to your children, which are two different things. If it came to court, CS would be on weak ground arguing the position the SW laid out (although I suspect that wasn't particularly well thought through). The psychologist would be cross-examined on these points, and a barrister would argue these points in your favour.

Of course factual errors in the report need drawing attention to, and MLC is right and this needs dealing with, but from what you say there is nothing there that would fundamentally alter the conclusions. Even if the alcohol issue was dealt with, it doesn't alter that the risk of reoffending (recidivism) and risk of contact offending are two different things.

[PerfectlySafeDad]

It just goes to show how desperately confused society is, and so-called experts, on sex offences and the relationship between types of offence. It's dismal to behold, all the floundering, and seems that they can't work it out so instead the end result is they treat it all the same. The level of ignorance, and damage caused by this ignorance is astounding and up there with the 17th century witch panics. It outweighs the damage people guilty of viewing a few images online cause. The only people who abuse children are people who abuse children. If a person has not abused children, they should be left alone and the idiots at CS concentrate their efforts where they are needed.

[May12345]

Hi Misery thanks for your reply that's a fab idea to write down the conversation with SW and ask for clarification. I've actually realised how wrong it is that he leat me with all these issues stewing in my head over the weekend advising me to seek advice from my solicitor when he knew full well it was Friday evening and I won't be able to speak to her til Monday morning. It's been hard not to let myself become preoccupied with it and focus on the children. I was awake several times with the baby last night and each time couldn't go back to sleep because I had all this going round my head. He also came at 5 (he always comes on his way home from work) and was here til around 6 spending five minutes checking the kids were OK in their bedrooms and the rest of the time was spent going over all this with me. As a result I couldn't start cooking their tea til he'd gone at 6 and then the whole routine was messed up for managing to do dishes bathtime for baby etc I didn't even manage to eat my tea as it had gone cold. This doesn't really matter but my point is when he chose to go over all that with me he had no thought whatsoever on the ripple effect that those discussions had. He paid no consideration at all to the fact that I wasn't able to speak to my solicitor over the weekend and would therefore be more anxious. Im glad I've been able to rant a bit on here anyway so Thankyou for your listening ears!
PSD I completely agree with you the umbrella approach they have is so wrong and outdated and with sadly the huge rise in this type of crime they will not be able to keep up with all of this for each person charged with online offending. I am well aware that children are exploited for these pics to be there and creating a need for their creating and I do hope they manage to stop this awful thing but to treat all who have viewed any similar images as ones that are going to contact offend once they have been charged and had their lives turned upside down is so wrong. I most certainly feel a victim in all this as the SW says often the children and I am the victims but I am at present a bigger victim for having the audacity to stand up for the belief that my husband can get help and manage his issues. To even consider having him return home makes me a bad person in their view. They have not as much said this all reports say what a great mum I am but they feel (in my eyes) that there must be something wrong with me to consider having this man around my children. The SW has reported himself at conferences that the children repeatedly ask for their father to come home. Our 7 year old was even singing about Daddy coming home to her baby sister and the SW heard and told my husband this but no the possibility of him reoffending online is apparently too great a risk for me to be able to manage.
DD2SS Thankyou again for replying. It helps alot to have advice from someone who has been through the courts etc I feel it's all new territory. I'm glad you feel the report is positive. I was feeling more positive after my husbands solicitor had said it was a good report and his probation officer said she can write a statement to say she knows thst he doesn't have a drink problem. I had no idea the LA would still view his risk of reoffending as medium and not look into the fact that he's not drinking now. The thing is drink is something that can't be monitored long term anyway if it was that much of an issue to make someone more risky his probation officer would have been telling him from the start that he couldn't drink. I do hope you're right and thst the Psychologists report wouldn't stand up in court and that we won't need to fund a second opinion. Did you have a risk assessment yourself? Interestingly on the matrix he scores low for reoffending. It's all so complex and alot to get my head around when I'm so busy with the kids and making sure the house is spotless for when the SW deins to visit!
I wanted to ask am I in danger of losing my children if I maintain the stance that I am not ready to decide whether or not to resume a relationship? This is the main thing we want to avoid we could not and will not put our children through this. But surely if I'm not moving him in and all contact is supervised then I don't need to worry? I just wanted to check because they are on plo and I don't want any nasty surprises. The SW has definitely changed his tune since that visit and I don't like it. He is trying to make me feel there is no hope but until a judge says he cannot come home I will gice myself the possibility of a choice when I'm ready to decide whst I want for the future.
Is it moral or ethical that he is putting pressure on me to make my mind up now? I want to do this LF work and reflect on their views and then maybe revisit the topic of reunification but we've lived like this for 19m now I'm not desperate like I was at the start. The kids are coping and so am I because we've had no choice but I do not appreciate the SW telling me that I need to decide soon because to not isn't fair on the children. Thst doesn't make sense to me.... I feel he's trying to trip me up....

[May12345]

Just realised I forgot to say he asked my seven year old daughter how she got a tiny bruise on her ELBOW

[May12345]

Is Suzie around on weekends?
Can or is a judge likely to say my husband cannot come home ever? Is that the thing only a judge can decide? Im wondering why CS are still pressing me to make a decision if there is no option? Confused....