One of the terms of my sons shpo states....
Having any unsupervised contact of any kind with any child under the age of 16, other than:
I. Such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life, or
II. With the consent of the child's parent or guardian, or relevant social services who has knowledge of his convictions.
What's people interpretation of this??
For me I've read it that he can be around children so long as its not unsupervised and with parents knowledge, his PPU says no he is not allowed to be around ANY child without parent knowledge AND a referral to social services for safeguarding.
Having any unsupervised contact of any kind with any child under the age of 16, other than:
I. Such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life, or
II. With the consent of the child's parent or guardian, or relevant social services who has knowledge of his convictions.
What's people interpretation of this??
For me I've read it that he can be around children so long as its not unsupervised and with parents knowledge, his PPU says no he is not allowed to be around ANY child without parent knowledge AND a referral to social services for safeguarding.
It's the important distinction between the word and, and the word or.
The SHPO states, or social services not and social services. I would read this to say that consent is needed from either the child’s parents/guardian or from social services not from both.
That said the only way to be sure about the interpretation of the wording would be to ask the court that issued it.
The SHPO states, or social services not and social services. I would read this to say that consent is needed from either the child’s parents/guardian or from social services not from both.
That said the only way to be sure about the interpretation of the wording would be to ask the court that issued it.
Thank you this is our interpretation of it!
Are they purposely trying to trip them up over wordings
Are they purposely trying to trip them up over wordings
Probably there not trying to purposfully trip him up but instead being selective/wilfully ignorant on how they read the conditions. I would suggest you ask your solicitor for advice on how this condition should be interpreted.
The easiest solution is your solicitor to clarify but the fact it says or not and I wouldn't say social services need to be informed as well. But it is better to be safe then have them come down on him for a misunderstanding.