SW meeting - their perception of offenders
Notifications OFF
Now that my thumb's have recovered from my previous post (in regard to family supervision) I can provide my experience on my meeting with the SW.
Myself, my partner and his mum and sister were invited to meet the SW together to discuss his kids having supervised contact. It is going through the courts at the moment.
My partner was asked to leave for about an hour for the SW to chat to us.
First she asked us what we understood of my partner's offence and previous offending behaviour. I met my partner whilst he was under investigation...I know im a head scratcher for many as 99.9% of people would walk away.. .more on that in a moment.
I had said that my understanding was my partner would go online as a form of escapism, and he had low self esteem and stress which were some triggers. In hindsight I wish I used the term like aggregators, because the main underlying issue I think was the fact my partner was looking for sexual gratification primarily.
I said that I can only really repeat what my partner has said but he claims to not have an interest in children and that he was disassociated from the images he sought. But I clarified that I cannot see into his head and so have to be aware he could have an interest and therefore impose mitigations- which are covered by the SHPO and SOR.
My partner's mum however just kept repeating that she thought my partner was just mindlessly clicking through porn links and would come across iioc. She was in court when his sentence was passed. The police found evidence from ten years prior that he had searched terms into a search engine e.g 'teen girls' which was used as evidence that he sought out iiocs. Other evidence was available such as chat rooms and swapping content etc. I don't think my partner's mum has accepted that my partner did seek out iioc and didnso for a very long period of time.
A lot of convo was on the impact my partner's wellbeing when he was with his ex wife, I feel like for many in the family and friends use this as a slight comfort/justification for why he offended. It has been noted numerous times my partner is at a higher risk of offending if under stress, but it was never the sole cause. I had said to the SW that my partner has been doing it for at least a decade, and that I think he would have continued regardless of the strain he was under. The sad life events that occurred may have made him view more, but the pattern of when and how never really changed.
Then the convo went to about me- why on earth am I with a man who has carried out of the worst crimes imaginable? I know that most people would run away, and I still don't know why a the time I stayed. I was 25 at the time, now in my 30s, and looking back I was naïve. Because my partner was visibly remorseful and agreed to be honest with me I decided to stay by until I read up more about online offenders and then be able to ask more questions to him. It was also important he sought rehabilitation which he was saving up for and was committed to doing. He had already been engaged with Lucy faithful after his arrest for support.
The SW did mention that offenders are generally deceptive, they are good at lying and will say what you want to hear ... because why would they admit they are not remorseful as that would get them into more trouble? - this was the perspective the SW gave.
And yes I agree that offenders, especially during the offending and after the knock are likely to be good at lying. My partner lied to everyone for the first few weeks, maybe months on the severity of his crimes as he was in such denial and didn't want to admit what he had done.
I wish I had said this to the SW but overall for me actions speak louder than words when it comes to my perception of my partner. Yes he could be lying to me, I hope not, but I do agree that he does have a history of deception. He even told me how he lied to his wife to get away to go online and seek iiocs. But as long as he sticks to the SHPO, is honest to the police, open for me to see his devices etc then that is enough for me- that he hasn't reoffended after his arrest.
Next the SW said she doesn't really think the rehabilitation support is good for offenders - that she believes it risks them learning off each other to be able to reoffend again! Now I have heard this belief before , and was one of the quoted reasons why some programs in prison were stopped. For me rehabilitation is very important, and I do have faith in it - especially if the offender is genuine in wanting to never offend again. It was the main reason I have stayed, that my partner took rehabilitation seriously and applies the principals.
Looking back at the convo with the SW I don't think my partner was a risk of 'learning more on how to offend', he was more likely to be a risk to others to learn off of him- he had been doing it for at least a decade and was not caught in that time, so unfortunately he was well established. It was by chance he was reported on a chat room - don't get me wrong I wish he never did it, but also that I wish he was caught alot sooner.
I think because the fact my partner has been offending for so long in the eyes of the SW and the courts he is a higher risk as it is harder for those like him to quit 'cold turkey'. Likely explains why he has a no contact clause with children, despite only having an online offense.
Hopefully an assessment on my partner will show he is not a high risk to his own children, and others (as SW apparently isn't keen on him being in a contact centre because of his SHPO clause- which I argue doesn't really apply because there is nothing to stop my partner going to a park or fun fair where kids will be but can avoid interacting with).
I do wish that I walked away- if anyone else shared the same experience as me (especially in the early days) I would say to walk away because it is such an unnecessary stress and burden. But I have a strong sense of giving people a second chance.. and so I'm still here. If my partner does reoffend I'm off, no ifs or buts.
Overall the SW said that I come across intelligent and have done research to be as informed as can be- I suspect she was worried I was naïve, burying head in the sand or not able to comprehend the offending. I know I confuse everyone. The SW said the ex wife was surprised I didn't leave after the sentenceinf after the description of the worst iiocs were disclosed in court - and tbh I knew generally the scale of the offending prior to the charges, my partner as far as I am aware hasn't lied to me and so I have stayed. If there aspects explainesd in court I wasn't aware of I would have walked.
The SW meeting was my first time talking to SS, I have been with my partner for nearly five years now ...I have always felt like an outsider but I'm a key support to my partner. Not sure how much more involvement I will have going forwards.
I do worry about whether I'm not deemed protective enough. Will anything I say be seen as valid because I chose to be in a relationship with an offender after the knock?
Myself, my partner and his mum and sister were invited to meet the SW together to discuss his kids having supervised contact. It is going through the courts at the moment.
My partner was asked to leave for about an hour for the SW to chat to us.
First she asked us what we understood of my partner's offence and previous offending behaviour. I met my partner whilst he was under investigation...I know im a head scratcher for many as 99.9% of people would walk away.. .more on that in a moment.
I had said that my understanding was my partner would go online as a form of escapism, and he had low self esteem and stress which were some triggers. In hindsight I wish I used the term like aggregators, because the main underlying issue I think was the fact my partner was looking for sexual gratification primarily.
I said that I can only really repeat what my partner has said but he claims to not have an interest in children and that he was disassociated from the images he sought. But I clarified that I cannot see into his head and so have to be aware he could have an interest and therefore impose mitigations- which are covered by the SHPO and SOR.
My partner's mum however just kept repeating that she thought my partner was just mindlessly clicking through porn links and would come across iioc. She was in court when his sentence was passed. The police found evidence from ten years prior that he had searched terms into a search engine e.g 'teen girls' which was used as evidence that he sought out iiocs. Other evidence was available such as chat rooms and swapping content etc. I don't think my partner's mum has accepted that my partner did seek out iioc and didnso for a very long period of time.
A lot of convo was on the impact my partner's wellbeing when he was with his ex wife, I feel like for many in the family and friends use this as a slight comfort/justification for why he offended. It has been noted numerous times my partner is at a higher risk of offending if under stress, but it was never the sole cause. I had said to the SW that my partner has been doing it for at least a decade, and that I think he would have continued regardless of the strain he was under. The sad life events that occurred may have made him view more, but the pattern of when and how never really changed.
Then the convo went to about me- why on earth am I with a man who has carried out of the worst crimes imaginable? I know that most people would run away, and I still don't know why a the time I stayed. I was 25 at the time, now in my 30s, and looking back I was naïve. Because my partner was visibly remorseful and agreed to be honest with me I decided to stay by until I read up more about online offenders and then be able to ask more questions to him. It was also important he sought rehabilitation which he was saving up for and was committed to doing. He had already been engaged with Lucy faithful after his arrest for support.
The SW did mention that offenders are generally deceptive, they are good at lying and will say what you want to hear ... because why would they admit they are not remorseful as that would get them into more trouble? - this was the perspective the SW gave.
And yes I agree that offenders, especially during the offending and after the knock are likely to be good at lying. My partner lied to everyone for the first few weeks, maybe months on the severity of his crimes as he was in such denial and didn't want to admit what he had done.
I wish I had said this to the SW but overall for me actions speak louder than words when it comes to my perception of my partner. Yes he could be lying to me, I hope not, but I do agree that he does have a history of deception. He even told me how he lied to his wife to get away to go online and seek iiocs. But as long as he sticks to the SHPO, is honest to the police, open for me to see his devices etc then that is enough for me- that he hasn't reoffended after his arrest.
Next the SW said she doesn't really think the rehabilitation support is good for offenders - that she believes it risks them learning off each other to be able to reoffend again! Now I have heard this belief before , and was one of the quoted reasons why some programs in prison were stopped. For me rehabilitation is very important, and I do have faith in it - especially if the offender is genuine in wanting to never offend again. It was the main reason I have stayed, that my partner took rehabilitation seriously and applies the principals.
Looking back at the convo with the SW I don't think my partner was a risk of 'learning more on how to offend', he was more likely to be a risk to others to learn off of him- he had been doing it for at least a decade and was not caught in that time, so unfortunately he was well established. It was by chance he was reported on a chat room - don't get me wrong I wish he never did it, but also that I wish he was caught alot sooner.
I think because the fact my partner has been offending for so long in the eyes of the SW and the courts he is a higher risk as it is harder for those like him to quit 'cold turkey'. Likely explains why he has a no contact clause with children, despite only having an online offense.
Hopefully an assessment on my partner will show he is not a high risk to his own children, and others (as SW apparently isn't keen on him being in a contact centre because of his SHPO clause- which I argue doesn't really apply because there is nothing to stop my partner going to a park or fun fair where kids will be but can avoid interacting with).
I do wish that I walked away- if anyone else shared the same experience as me (especially in the early days) I would say to walk away because it is such an unnecessary stress and burden. But I have a strong sense of giving people a second chance.. and so I'm still here. If my partner does reoffend I'm off, no ifs or buts.
Overall the SW said that I come across intelligent and have done research to be as informed as can be- I suspect she was worried I was naïve, burying head in the sand or not able to comprehend the offending. I know I confuse everyone. The SW said the ex wife was surprised I didn't leave after the sentenceinf after the description of the worst iiocs were disclosed in court - and tbh I knew generally the scale of the offending prior to the charges, my partner as far as I am aware hasn't lied to me and so I have stayed. If there aspects explainesd in court I wasn't aware of I would have walked.
The SW meeting was my first time talking to SS, I have been with my partner for nearly five years now ...I have always felt like an outsider but I'm a key support to my partner. Not sure how much more involvement I will have going forwards.
I do worry about whether I'm not deemed protective enough. Will anything I say be seen as valid because I chose to be in a relationship with an offender after the knock?
I think it's a bit rich of the social worker to make all these assumptions about your partner. Only a forensic psychologist would be able to make an assessment like this. She brought a lot of her personal opinion in this.
I agree. I suspect the comments were to see how I would react and if I was totally dismissive to my partner's offending. I like to hope that she actually is more positive on rehabilitation. She did mention some studies that show not all online offenders will contact offend- so that might show the comments on generalized view was a tactic?
Unfortunately my partner has multiple assessments which all have different criteria, tho I would argue all have the same outcome- no strong indicatation on interest in contact offending and risk to his children. The fact he was offending online for near a decade I can see that yes he is a higher risk compared to those who were not as involved to reoffend - but he has the tools to prevent him doing it again. I have to have the faith he will stick to it and speak up if he is struggling.
Now waiting for yet another assessment to be agreed. Fyi my partner is one year post his suspended sentence, so he has done all required assessments post sentencing.
Unfortunately my partner has multiple assessments which all have different criteria, tho I would argue all have the same outcome- no strong indicatation on interest in contact offending and risk to his children. The fact he was offending online for near a decade I can see that yes he is a higher risk compared to those who were not as involved to reoffend - but he has the tools to prevent him doing it again. I have to have the faith he will stick to it and speak up if he is struggling.
Now waiting for yet another assessment to be agreed. Fyi my partner is one year post his suspended sentence, so he has done all required assessments post sentencing.
Post deleted