SHPO/SOPO

[May12345]

I've mentioned before that my husband doesn't have a SHPO/Sopo. I *stupidly* mentioned this when the SW was incorrectly telling me that my husband will never be allowed to move back home (I will put all this in a separate post). When I said that he wasn't given a SHPO the SW then said 'he should have been'. I said it was applied for at least twice and declined by the magistrate as he said it wasn't needed. The SW said that it wasnt applied as apparently it should have been applied for when he was first charged.
Anyway I spoke to husband about this and asked him to ask his probation officer if she knows why it wasn't applied. He left her a message as she wasn't in then she rang him to say shes emailed the SW and police who check husbands devices etc to ask them why it wasn't applied etc and even said to my husband they may reapply for it AGAIN and it could affect contact etc as now we're in PLO.
This has really scared us as the worst thing would be to make contact less when our kids are asking to see Daddy more but that is falling on seemingly deaf ears. Again this will be in my other post). So now I feel responsible for opening a can of worms which *could* make everything worse.
I think because my husband always gives over his devices willingly they felt the order wasn't needed also. Could SS make that change at this stage? He's halfway through the suspended sentence and expecting to be lowered risk wise to low soon by the police. Complying with all his conditions etc, surely the SHPO is up to the police and magistrates not SS and as SS pushed for it already twice at least could it be awarded now??

If it was awarded would it mean he couldn't come home while on it?

TIA

[PerfectlySafeDad]

First thing: the whole business of child protection is a protracted shambles, and SS above all lead the way in making it so.
Second: No, from what I understand, the SS have no authority whatsoever in even applying for a SHPO. They appear to think they do and certainly wish they do. It's entirely the authority of the police to apply for one; they have to apply to court (a Crown court too, not the corrupt family courts) and a judge has to agree it. The SS can try to badger police, but that's it.
Third: I don't think it has to be done at original sentencing (police can apply for one at any time), but there does have to be a crime committed (and proven) for it to be possible. There is a thing called a Sexual Risk Order that police can apply for where the person (unbelievably) has no criminal conviction even.

[May12345]

Thanks for that PSD. That pleased me that SS can't apply for it! Why is it SW seem to think they can make decisions that only a judge can and give advice (incorrect) advice that only a lawyer can? I will get onto my other post today if I get the time but that is what the NQSW is doing lately!
I really doubt that he would be given the order now as its already been applied for and declined twice, he's over halfway through the suspended sentence and doing all they ask not been any hint of reoffending and risk from police viewpoint about to be powered for a second time.
He will be starting the Inform plus course before long and I've got dates for my sessions too. Did you say you've done the course? I know this won't make much difference to SS the SW seems to be negative about him doing it but I know it this goes to court it would go for him.

[PerfectlySafeDad]

@May
Have you had any further news on the SHPO front? If your husband's risk is coming down, I find it highly unlikely the police would apply for one now, especially since the judge did not see fit to apply one in the first place. This would not be an 'oversight' - they simply don't make obvious errors like that, it was a considered decision not to apply one. CPS and the original police investigative team would have pushed for one via their lawyers if they deemed it necessary based on the charges. If one *did* get tried for now, then I would think a defence solicitor worth his salt would be able to appeal it based on 'inconsistency', lack of logic, lack of proportionality.
Am I right in thinking your husband's charges were a fairly low level ie low grade images and not many of them? If it was the magistrates court rather than Crown court that sentenced him, this must be so. I didn't think magistrates could give custodial sentences (even suspended) above about 6 months?
Whatever, it's quite obvious everything you're suffering is the time-honoured monumental overreaction and draconian behaviour of social services. They basically want him to have a SHPO that forbids unsupervised contact so that gives them leverage to get their claws into you all. As it stands, you've got every legal right to run your family (and his contact) as you please - aside from whatever you've signed (that does give them leverage) - and they have to fight you and oppress him based wholly on their 'argument' and stockpiling of risk evidence which they might be able to persuade a family court judge with if it came to that.
As is clear from other posts on here, unfortunately family judges will just 99% of the time take SS's word entirely and merely rubber-stamp their wishes. So you have to be careful, but no SHPO puts you in a stronger position - which is precisely why they're giving you so much grief, they feel they have to 'fill in the safeguarding gaps' left by no SHPO. Sheer arrogance, to think they know better than the law and try to be harsher than the law. They'll argue that 'risk' in the specific family situation is different to risk in the general community, ie that your husband might harm his own children (because of 'availability' and access etc).
IMO, instead they should be taking the view that (as with my case) his own children are the LAST people on earth he would harm. But they lack this basic human empathy and respect for family bond. 'Blood is far thicker than water' is the main principle that should guide them, and the fact that it doesn't makes me wonder what kind of family lives these social services Directors have had. I believe they view the nations' children as their pseudo-families to compensate for the flaws and emptiness in their own lives. It's power and arrogance, I can't see why else a person would want to do a job like that playing God and making punitive decisions on people's personal lives day in day out then sleeping easily at night?? Wtf?
Carry on what you're doing; toe the line as much as you have to and build up the evidence for the risk-lowering work you've both done.
Yes, you were 'stupid to mention it'! (to the social worker). Like the time I was asked by my first (dreadful) probation officer what support elements I had in my life for my mental health; I said innocently and cheerfully, 'well I'm glad I at least have phone calls to my sons, that keeps my spirits up'. She said, 'oh, not sure whether that should be allowed, as it's technically unsupervised contact' - and she promptly phoned up social services who promptly banned phone contact - 'a temporary precautionary measure' I was told; 2 years ago. I've done *nothing whatsoever wrong* in that time, besides grumbling now and then (what a terrible crime)

[May12345]

Ho again, thanks I agree with how they should be taking the view regarding his own children!

Only update to say I spoke to the police officer myself to explain that I had asked husband to ask probation officer why it was refused following the discussion with SW. she unbelievably emailed the police officer straight off without even talking to husband to check what he was asking and the police officer thought she’d said he was requesting to have one!!!
Anyway I spoke to the police officer explaining why If asked and he told husband that it wasn’t given because it wasn’t applied for. And basically it’s too late to apply for for a third time and already been refused twice. So that’s good.

I had no idea family court judge could be unjust....I was thinking if our case went to court there’s no way a judge could say husband shouldn’t live at home but maybe I’m wrong