Too far?
Notifications OFF
On their last visit, the CJSW told us that obviously the hubby must be supervised with the kids 24/7 (he has to to stay here as per conditions of court order). This means if I need the bathroom or to shower I must ask him to leave the house, if the kids are home. He is also not allowed to pop his head around the door to say goodnight or to say a quick hello. If someone comes to the door I must accompany him as he answers in case it's an U16. If he hugs the kids, as most parents do, I must keep an eye on his hand placement "just in case" I was also questioned on how I schedule my sleep around all of this. I told them I sleep at night like everyone else does. She said but he could do something whilst I'm asleep. I replied with the tiniest noise wakes me up (been that way since oldest was born lol) that includes our downstairs neighbour sneezing! this was all said in front of the family SW. makes me wonder if it was said for her benefit or if they are just really OTT
I personally don't think it's too far when you don't 100% know whether he would hurt your child.
I don't know the circumstances of the crime, but a lot of these people in our lives managed to hide and lie about what they were actually doing, and to me my kids being safe is most important!
for you to be seen as a protective factor, you will need to be showing you understanding the risks and possible consequences if they are allowed to be unsupervised.
I don't know the circumstances of the crime, but a lot of these people in our lives managed to hide and lie about what they were actually doing, and to me my kids being safe is most important!
for you to be seen as a protective factor, you will need to be showing you understanding the risks and possible consequences if they are allowed to be unsupervised.
Background: he was sent iioc amongst adult images. He didn't go looking for them. Didn't ask for them. Didn't pay for them. Didn't send any. Zero contact with anyone U18 etc. cyber report proved he was telling the truth the whole time but obviously a sentence had to be given - 240 hours community payback order, 3 years working with CJSW and 3 years on register. He has never been a danger to our children. Even the police stated this when he was being released on bail. Throughout the bail and now these conditions, he's been cleared to stay at home with us.
His court conditions state he can't have unsupervised contact and communication with U16s. Social work said he can't have contact with U16s at all be it supervised or unsupervised, other than our kids. My son is 15 and his friends are 16 (born early in the year). He's been told his friends can't come even if they are 16. It's confusing
His court conditions state he can't have unsupervised contact and communication with U16s. Social work said he can't have contact with U16s at all be it supervised or unsupervised, other than our kids. My son is 15 and his friends are 16 (born early in the year). He's been told his friends can't come even if they are 16. It's confusing
I thought about that but the landlord refused to give permission for it. I said it was for security and they said being on a high floor is security enough. Obviously I couldn't give the real reason or we would most the flat
Could you just have like a little camera? Like one you don't have to put up anywhere? Sort of like a baby monitor one or Tapo?
I have one in my living room and our daughter is 2 so she still has a baby monitor for her room.
This wasn't a required measure but I quite often use it.
Although mine is now allowed unsupervised access so it's not to bad.
Also can the kids say goodnight in the living room? Might just be easier.
Regarding friends I dont really know the answer as mine is still little.
Unfortunately social don't listen to police, probation or ppu as they work on a different level and it's on probability.
My partners PPU , probation and the police said my partner was a low risk and there was no reason we shouldn't be a family etc. They took our daughter at birth!
She's home now and he's moving back soon. But unfortunately social work on a different level.
It's so hard. I hated when they questioned about my sleep, her bedroom etc.
I have one in my living room and our daughter is 2 so she still has a baby monitor for her room.
This wasn't a required measure but I quite often use it.
Although mine is now allowed unsupervised access so it's not to bad.
Also can the kids say goodnight in the living room? Might just be easier.
Regarding friends I dont really know the answer as mine is still little.
Unfortunately social don't listen to police, probation or ppu as they work on a different level and it's on probability.
My partners PPU , probation and the police said my partner was a low risk and there was no reason we shouldn't be a family etc. They took our daughter at birth!
She's home now and he's moving back soon. But unfortunately social work on a different level.
It's so hard. I hated when they questioned about my sleep, her bedroom etc.
If he isn't classed as a danger than how come he isn't allowed any contact with under 16s ?
My person doesn't have SHPO, any restrictions apart from being on the register which has something about informing police if he's at an address etc I'm just confused as that to me would seem like they are worried about something? I don't mean this to come across as being rude so apologies if it is.
Police and social can have different opinions, but I've found that social will never take the risk. They treat these crimes like you can't ever change, get help etc but if you are an addict to alchocolc for example you're seen as being able to 'overcome' and move on. What's worst, it's often based on their opinions, not factual or evidence based.
My person doesn't have SHPO, any restrictions apart from being on the register which has something about informing police if he's at an address etc I'm just confused as that to me would seem like they are worried about something? I don't mean this to come across as being rude so apologies if it is.
Police and social can have different opinions, but I've found that social will never take the risk. They treat these crimes like you can't ever change, get help etc but if you are an addict to alchocolc for example you're seen as being able to 'overcome' and move on. What's worst, it's often based on their opinions, not factual or evidence based.
He was told this is the standard rule for such offences. CJSW said it's because they don't know him well enough yet. Everyone is seen as high risk once convicted then over time once they get to know him more they reduce the risk
Are you outside England? It's seem very different to what happened to my person, but my person was sentenced 7 years ago now so things can change etc and the offence was different.
my person was classed as low risk but he still doesn't have unsupervised access, he's tried his best to get it but social workers say no.
my person was classed as low risk but he still doesn't have unsupervised access, he's tried his best to get it but social workers say no.
We had this level of restrictions from arrest, including them not allowed to reside in the house, no sleep overs& I wasn't allowed to supervise. I and a small number of close relatives who social services have pre-approved can now supervise but this is still our reality awaiting sentencing and have been told even if court impose different conditions this is what social services will agree. It's annoying me having to take my child with me every time I go to the toilet or make dad also leave the room/come with me if I need to go into another room I.e kitchen to make a drink etc but you do get used to it. To fully reduce the risk you can't allow unsupervised for any amount of time. To be 100% safe I must be within eyeshot and earshot at all times. My person was online offences only but risk and safety wise it doesn't matter they have to assume the worst for the child's safety.