Confused.
Notifications OFF
Sorry if this isn't the right place.
back in September my person was caught wit a phone that accesses the internet. Both the police and SW said he wasn't allowed to access the internet. This is where it gets messy.
He was at court for the breach last week. The judge said and I quote "if you breach again it will be orson. Your court order still stands as does accessing the internet as long as you do not delete apps or history (he hadnt deleted anything from that phone he was caught with that was confirmed) so if the court order is saying this whole time he's been allowed access to the internet, why is it a breach?!
when the breach happened, SW were informed. They said it's best he didn't stay here anymore due to us having children. Then the family social worker said he can't see or speak to the kids (both teens). Again the judge said he will leave this to SW to decide but he does not feel he's a danger to our children or other children. Then said "if you enter into a relationship with a woman who already has children, just let us know and we will keep an eye on things."
it's one massive mess
back in September my person was caught wit a phone that accesses the internet. Both the police and SW said he wasn't allowed to access the internet. This is where it gets messy.
He was at court for the breach last week. The judge said and I quote "if you breach again it will be orson. Your court order still stands as does accessing the internet as long as you do not delete apps or history (he hadnt deleted anything from that phone he was caught with that was confirmed) so if the court order is saying this whole time he's been allowed access to the internet, why is it a breach?!
when the breach happened, SW were informed. They said it's best he didn't stay here anymore due to us having children. Then the family social worker said he can't see or speak to the kids (both teens). Again the judge said he will leave this to SW to decide but he does not feel he's a danger to our children or other children. Then said "if you enter into a relationship with a woman who already has children, just let us know and we will keep an eye on things."
it's one massive mess
I assume it's the SHPO he has allegedly breached? Do you have a copy of it? It would state on there the requirements regarding internet usage etc.
My OH is not allowed to delete anything and has to show his devices to his offender manager for checking when they visit. He is allowed internet capable devices.
My OH is not allowed to delete anything and has to show his devices to his offender manager for checking when they visit. He is allowed internet capable devices.
The court order states he's allowed internet as long as he doesn't delete anything and shows the attending officer who comes to check.
This is all to do with the Scottish CPO and how it is being interpreted by the courts and by the SW.
The courts have given the SW a free hand to interpret what a CPO means. That has resulted in all kinds of extreme restrictions being imposed on people, which in my view, go way beyond what the court originally intended, when they were sentenced.
So you are going to get situations where the SW says they have breached the conditions, but the court says they have not. This is a good example.
I think what the court meant was internet access, but no deleting of internet history, which is the same as in England, under an SHPO.
But in Scotland, a lot of SW have interpreted that to mean no internet access of any kind is allowed.
Ultimately, only the court can decide if there is a breach, not the SW. So if someone is accused by SW of a breach, it always has to go back to the court, for them to make the final decision.
The courts have given the SW a free hand to interpret what a CPO means. That has resulted in all kinds of extreme restrictions being imposed on people, which in my view, go way beyond what the court originally intended, when they were sentenced.
So you are going to get situations where the SW says they have breached the conditions, but the court says they have not. This is a good example.
I think what the court meant was internet access, but no deleting of internet history, which is the same as in England, under an SHPO.
But in Scotland, a lot of SW have interpreted that to mean no internet access of any kind is allowed.
Ultimately, only the court can decide if there is a breach, not the SW. So if someone is accused by SW of a breach, it always has to go back to the court, for them to make the final decision.
The court agreed it was a breach at the first hearing for it then said at the second hearing he can access it just don't delete. The contradiction is ridiculous.
there is a MAPPA meeting tomorrow and I should find out by Friday if they will allow him to see the kids. Even his CJSW said the no contact decision by the family SW was too far.
there is a MAPPA meeting tomorrow and I should find out by Friday if they will allow him to see the kids. Even his CJSW said the no contact decision by the family SW was too far.