I'm so confused!!!
Notifications OFF
Hi all, my oh was sentenced in December he got 6 months suspended sentence and I think 7years on sor he was very lucky that he never got put on anything else just sor.
On his meeting with his probation officer I basically sent a list of questions I wanted answers for so we could make sure we was following what we need to as he was basically just shoved paperwork and that was it. One of the questions was regarding if I still needed to supervise any contact with children still as on sor it just mentions notifying them if he's around a child for more than 7 hours. My oh probation officer said that this was no longer required. So that's what we done. Now fast forward 4-5 months later the officer came round to do a check of phone etc and he's now saying that he shouldn't be unsupervised (luckily I kept responses from probation officer on phone). I explained it's really difficult to follow restrictions when the 2 people who are suppose to be helping my oh are saying the complete opposites from each other. I have told the officer I will supervise but they need to decide and let me know via writing asap as he mentioned something about the probation officer can alter that or something. Can anyone clarify of supervising is still needed if they are just on sor and is it normal for a probation officer to alter this? It really doesn't give me much faith in the system and now I'm questioning everything I've been told.
On his meeting with his probation officer I basically sent a list of questions I wanted answers for so we could make sure we was following what we need to as he was basically just shoved paperwork and that was it. One of the questions was regarding if I still needed to supervise any contact with children still as on sor it just mentions notifying them if he's around a child for more than 7 hours. My oh probation officer said that this was no longer required. So that's what we done. Now fast forward 4-5 months later the officer came round to do a check of phone etc and he's now saying that he shouldn't be unsupervised (luckily I kept responses from probation officer on phone). I explained it's really difficult to follow restrictions when the 2 people who are suppose to be helping my oh are saying the complete opposites from each other. I have told the officer I will supervise but they need to decide and let me know via writing asap as he mentioned something about the probation officer can alter that or something. Can anyone clarify of supervising is still needed if they are just on sor and is it normal for a probation officer to alter this? It really doesn't give me much faith in the system and now I'm questioning everything I've been told.
Hi,
Is it supervision of your own children that you'd like clarification on? The officer may refer you back to ss to work with them on a new safety plan if that's the case. If it is other children within the family then the officer may want their parents names to verify that they know of the offence and have a clear understanding on safeguarding xxx
Is it supervision of your own children that you'd like clarification on? The officer may refer you back to ss to work with them on a new safety plan if that's the case. If it is other children within the family then the officer may want their parents names to verify that they know of the offence and have a clear understanding on safeguarding xxx
It's children outside of our home. Like at family get togethers etc. I was cleared by SS as being able to use my common sense on the situation when it comes to my children. The po had said if we went to family gatherings or parties I wouldn't need to supervise him even though alot don't know the situation yet the visor said this isn't the case. He's only on sor and the paperwork never said anything about supervising that why I asked in the first place.
Ah ok. There is another post on here regarding a similar situation. I emailed my persons visor after something was said along the lines of he can go to weddings and funerals but intimate gatherings like bbqs and parties would require disclosure. There is nothing in my persons SHPO that says this and I never received a response from her when I emailed asking if he was subject to any other restrictions. I'm guessing that she knew she'd made an error but didn't want to acknowledge it.
My person hasn't attended any events since sentencing but all of his family know and still invite him. I thought the sor requirements were to notify if they will spend more than 12 hours in a place with children but I could be wrong.
It's difficult if they disagree with each other. You're doing the right thing to ask for clarification in writing. I'd be cautious about wording it as unsupervised access in any communication with professionals as that could be misinterpreted. I presume by unsupervised you mean other adults around but just not ones that you've disclosed to, am I understanding you correctly? Depending on the response you get from visor you could contact unlock and email visor and their superior stating your understanding of his legal obligation xxx
My person hasn't attended any events since sentencing but all of his family know and still invite him. I thought the sor requirements were to notify if they will spend more than 12 hours in a place with children but I could be wrong.
It's difficult if they disagree with each other. You're doing the right thing to ask for clarification in writing. I'd be cautious about wording it as unsupervised access in any communication with professionals as that could be misinterpreted. I presume by unsupervised you mean other adults around but just not ones that you've disclosed to, am I understanding you correctly? Depending on the response you get from visor you could contact unlock and email visor and their superior stating your understanding of his legal obligation xxx
Yes that's what I mean obviously other adults around and not entirely alone with kids himself, probaboy should have said that sorry. That's exactly what I thought on the paperwork it doesn't state anything about him having to be supervised still. I took our girls on holiday for a weekend and his brother came round with his son (they are unaware of the situation) and that's what made him say that never should have happened without me there.
Oh I understand. Purely my opinion and not from the legal side of things; if his brother was on his own with his son and your husband without disclosure he could go to the toilet or think nothing of leaving his son with your husband to go to the garden or another room to take a phone call etc. I'm not at the same point as you in terms of our relationship and our daughter is a toddler so I don't leave her alone with my person at present. I do have older children so I am using my experience of them and how I would have been around people I trusted when they were younger who I had no reason not to have left them with. From a safeguarding perspective for both children and your husband I personally would always ensure that either the meet ups were in public or with two adults present to prevent any allegations or if anyone found out at a later stage them feeling betrayed that their children were around someone on sor without their knowledge.
I'm interested to know what response you get from visor though as it will be something I'll have to manage in the future so having knowledge prior to that would be helpful if you don't mind sharing xxx
I'm interested to know what response you get from visor though as it will be something I'll have to manage in the future so having knowledge prior to that would be helpful if you don't mind sharing xxx
I will do Hun. The po has messaged and is seeing my husband next week and he said they'd discuss it more then.
So I have an update.
My oh went to his probation meeting and discussed what his visor had said. His po said the visor had made no contact with him regarding this matter (considering it was over a week after he came round). The probation officer has said that my oh does not need to be supervised as the only restrictions he has is that on the sor and that only comes on to play after 7 (or 12 hours, can't remember which one at the moment). He said we have it all in writing (on the sor documents) and via a WhatsApp message from him when we had previously asked the question.
He believes the visor hadn't looked at my ohs documents properly and just assumed he was on the other thing as well.
My oh went to his probation meeting and discussed what his visor had said. His po said the visor had made no contact with him regarding this matter (considering it was over a week after he came round). The probation officer has said that my oh does not need to be supervised as the only restrictions he has is that on the sor and that only comes on to play after 7 (or 12 hours, can't remember which one at the moment). He said we have it all in writing (on the sor documents) and via a WhatsApp message from him when we had previously asked the question.
He believes the visor hadn't looked at my ohs documents properly and just assumed he was on the other thing as well.