Where do we stand
Notifications OFF
My husband has been on bail since April this year. His bail conditions state he must stay at this address and he can have supervised access with our children. I'm at home 24/7 due to health issues and I study at home also.
The bail conditions don't say he can't stay at home. His lawyer has said legally he can and must stay at this address.
social worker has said he should not be staying at the house but only visiting and doesn't like that the court have not included a condition saying he can't stay in the home. They also said that within a few weeks of his arrest that he must enter a plea (not true as moved from police to court bail), they also said the bail conditions had been dropped and then it was oh he's been convicted hasn't he? Which he hasn't as the investigation is still ongoing. SS also said that even if he's found not guilty that he could still be potentially dangerous! (he was sent those kind of photos amongst photos of over 21s. So whoever sent it was the bad guy. He went to the police straight away but arrested on suspicion of possession illegal images)
Where do we stand with this?
The bail conditions don't say he can't stay at home. His lawyer has said legally he can and must stay at this address.
social worker has said he should not be staying at the house but only visiting and doesn't like that the court have not included a condition saying he can't stay in the home. They also said that within a few weeks of his arrest that he must enter a plea (not true as moved from police to court bail), they also said the bail conditions had been dropped and then it was oh he's been convicted hasn't he? Which he hasn't as the investigation is still ongoing. SS also said that even if he's found not guilty that he could still be potentially dangerous! (he was sent those kind of photos amongst photos of over 21s. So whoever sent it was the bad guy. He went to the police straight away but arrested on suspicion of possession illegal images)
Where do we stand with this?
Do not break the bail terms....follow them to the letter and get a solicitor or the police to clarify any ambiguous things. You break bail you go to jail. Sounds like social services haven't read your file properly or keep forgetting what stage you're at.
if they query anything just refer them back to the bail conditions and that he has to stick to them and neither of you will be doing anything that can be seen as breaking them. Unfortunately my persons bail said he could't reside at home and to "follow any social services recommendations" so they say jump and we have to ask how high.
I was allowed to supervise, then had a change of social worker who said I wasn't allowed, changed all our safety plan that had been agreed & followed to the letter, and when we queried changes ALL ACCESS was removed until after we'd gone to a child protection conference.
I would get clarification of what they want, get it in writing and get it checked if you think it's breaking bail terms. If they're suggesting he has to live at home but cant stay with you and the kids I'd ask them what they suggest as you and the children need a home too? Where would you go? How long for?
if they query anything just refer them back to the bail conditions and that he has to stick to them and neither of you will be doing anything that can be seen as breaking them. Unfortunately my persons bail said he could't reside at home and to "follow any social services recommendations" so they say jump and we have to ask how high.
I was allowed to supervise, then had a change of social worker who said I wasn't allowed, changed all our safety plan that had been agreed & followed to the letter, and when we queried changes ALL ACCESS was removed until after we'd gone to a child protection conference.
I would get clarification of what they want, get it in writing and get it checked if you think it's breaking bail terms. If they're suggesting he has to live at home but cant stay with you and the kids I'd ask them what they suggest as you and the children need a home too? Where would you go? How long for?
Hi.
thanks for your reply.
me and the kids don't have anywhere else to go as no one has space for us and we sure can't afford 2 rental properties!
the old social worker was awful. Very judgmental and when I was at a&e questioned me on the phone as to why I was there and how long I would be. I told her the kids were at my mum's and she was like does he have access there? Now she had already been told, by my dad, that they knew of the conditions etc. the new one seems ok but I just don't trust them.
the bail states he can't have access to under 18s unless it's in daily life and can't be avoided (shopping etc) but he can have supervised access with our children by someone over the age of 21 and who knows the conditions. There is absolutely nothing to say he can't stay at home.
when the old social worker saw this she said "I don't like that. Why did they put his home address? Why doesn't it say he can't stay at this address." I replied by saying ask the court, they processed this not me. She also questioned why he had a PayPal as that's only used for dodgy transactions. The police had already confirmed no financial transactions had been made etc. she was just clutching at straws. Apparently he was on forums, that's what the arresting officer told her apparently. Which was wrong they said he has social media (like us all) the social worker claimed she didn't have social media and assumed it was dodgy too. Makes you wonder what goes through their heads
thanks for your reply.
me and the kids don't have anywhere else to go as no one has space for us and we sure can't afford 2 rental properties!
the old social worker was awful. Very judgmental and when I was at a&e questioned me on the phone as to why I was there and how long I would be. I told her the kids were at my mum's and she was like does he have access there? Now she had already been told, by my dad, that they knew of the conditions etc. the new one seems ok but I just don't trust them.
the bail states he can't have access to under 18s unless it's in daily life and can't be avoided (shopping etc) but he can have supervised access with our children by someone over the age of 21 and who knows the conditions. There is absolutely nothing to say he can't stay at home.
when the old social worker saw this she said "I don't like that. Why did they put his home address? Why doesn't it say he can't stay at this address." I replied by saying ask the court, they processed this not me. She also questioned why he had a PayPal as that's only used for dodgy transactions. The police had already confirmed no financial transactions had been made etc. she was just clutching at straws. Apparently he was on forums, that's what the arresting officer told her apparently. Which was wrong they said he has social media (like us all) the social worker claimed she didn't have social media and assumed it was dodgy too. Makes you wonder what goes through their heads
Update:
He spoke to his lawyer who said from a criminal justice perspective he can be here but civil services could raise it in a a civil court and force him out the home and make him homeless.
He spoke to his lawyer who said from a criminal justice perspective he can be here but civil services could raise it in a a civil court and force him out the home and make him homeless.
I empathise with your confusion over this as we had it too but because of different aspects of the bail conditions. We couldn't get a clear answer as the bail didn't mention overnight being banned, just no unsupervised access to under 18s and we had been assessed as being safe to supervise, but SS expected him to move out every night so once the weather warmed up he asked if he could sleep or camp in our garden which is large and was inaccessible to the house once a door was locked. This resulted in his OIC saying he was obviously going to break the bail conditions and that our local police would be told so they could do spot checks at our address. That really freaked me out and of course no such thing has ever happened so it was just a reaction to our son daring to ask a question of the OIC who needless to say we have no respect for as this is a recurring theme with her.
The problem with all this when the police expectations don't match what SS say is that whereas the police go on proof, SS go on risk which until there are exact details of what the offences are (and as we know it can take years for that to be confirmed) anyone being investigated is seen as a 'risk' by SWs. So it's one size fits all for any child sexual offenders. Even once our son moved from bail to RUI he was still expected to stick to the conditions by SS which we have done even though we know he isn't breaking the law if he doesn't comply. We just can't win really (plus we've had in house risk and protective assessments with good results BUT no budging on the 'no overnights' or 'no unsupervised access' because the charges haven't been confirmed yet.) To ignore or break the expectations would lead to us being considered unsafe to supervise and flag up child protection issues. You seem to have had a rubbish SW too, a proper jobsworth and judgmental too, as ours was lovely but firm about this and to ignore the 'rules' would have backfired on us big time.
It's so hard to decide whether it's worth risking the sledge hammer of SS with their Children in Need or Child Protection powers or just putting up with their expectations to keep them happy and as you have said, you can't afford for your husband to rent somewhere of his own so I can see the dilemma. Is there anyone at all near you who he could stay overnight with?
Lastly, I wonder if it's worth getting some legal advice about where you stand considering you aren't financially able to comply with what is being demanded of you. You could phone the Family Rights group helpline. They also have some good guidelines on their website about how to complain about SS which you might consider doing.
Anyway, whatever happens do keep posting on here for support.
Hugs x
The problem with all this when the police expectations don't match what SS say is that whereas the police go on proof, SS go on risk which until there are exact details of what the offences are (and as we know it can take years for that to be confirmed) anyone being investigated is seen as a 'risk' by SWs. So it's one size fits all for any child sexual offenders. Even once our son moved from bail to RUI he was still expected to stick to the conditions by SS which we have done even though we know he isn't breaking the law if he doesn't comply. We just can't win really (plus we've had in house risk and protective assessments with good results BUT no budging on the 'no overnights' or 'no unsupervised access' because the charges haven't been confirmed yet.) To ignore or break the expectations would lead to us being considered unsafe to supervise and flag up child protection issues. You seem to have had a rubbish SW too, a proper jobsworth and judgmental too, as ours was lovely but firm about this and to ignore the 'rules' would have backfired on us big time.
It's so hard to decide whether it's worth risking the sledge hammer of SS with their Children in Need or Child Protection powers or just putting up with their expectations to keep them happy and as you have said, you can't afford for your husband to rent somewhere of his own so I can see the dilemma. Is there anyone at all near you who he could stay overnight with?
Lastly, I wonder if it's worth getting some legal advice about where you stand considering you aren't financially able to comply with what is being demanded of you. You could phone the Family Rights group helpline. They also have some good guidelines on their website about how to complain about SS which you might consider doing.
Anyway, whatever happens do keep posting on here for support.
Hugs x
Hi
i spoke to a civil rights lawyer who specialises in this and they said they can't take us on because husband has a lawyer and they can't go against what the court has stated. If a civil rights lawyer can't do anything, what gives social services the right to go against the court.
my husband has secured a nightshift position so technically he won't be staying overnight at home and would sleep when kids are at school. So in a way he would still just be visiting
i spoke to a civil rights lawyer who specialises in this and they said they can't take us on because husband has a lawyer and they can't go against what the court has stated. If a civil rights lawyer can't do anything, what gives social services the right to go against the court.
my husband has secured a nightshift position so technically he won't be staying overnight at home and would sleep when kids are at school. So in a way he would still just be visiting