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.
We have a similar restriction and interpret it to mean that they have to be supervised around all children unless social services and the parents agree that he can have unsupervised contact with a specific child/children for example their own child or older siblings. In my persons case, social services have said a child would need to be able to make a disclosure before they would consider unsupervised contact with a specific child.
Ocean - yes exactly this, I keep rereading and come to the conclusion that this restriction is only if he wants unsupervised contact (which he absolutely doesnt). PPU and probation are both saying that social servixe referral needs to be made for safety plans for supervised contact. We have emailed our less that useless solicitor for clarification but not exactly sure what else to do from here, he wants to go visit his nanna that has little grandkids (my sons cousins) that visit her very often, all parents to these children know of his convictions and are ok with him visiting.
Hi,
would it be yourself supervising contact? It may be worth contacting ss yourself and explaining the situation. State that the parents are aware and the safety plan would be that he is supervised at all times, if whoever is supervising needs to leave the room then either your son or the children in question will go with them depending on their age. I found that when I've approached them they tend to be more understanding than if probation or police put in a referral xxx
would it be yourself supervising contact? It may be worth contacting ss yourself and explaining the situation. State that the parents are aware and the safety plan would be that he is supervised at all times, if whoever is supervising needs to leave the room then either your son or the children in question will go with them depending on their age. I found that when I've approached them they tend to be more understanding than if probation or police put in a referral xxx
So little update, we have contacted solicitors and barrister regarding the issue on the shpo and they are both in agreement that there is no such clause restricting my son being around any child under 16 so long as its supervised, here is a brief snipet of said email.....
'If he got into relationship with someone that had children then full disclosure by social services would need to be done for 'unsupervised contact' OR consent of parents; And the same to live in the household. There is no need for social services input in either case if parent with knowledge of convictions consents.
If Defendant wanted to go out with his mum, her friend and their children then provided he is not left alone with the children then that is supervised contact against which there is no prohibition.
If his PPU says something different, they would appear to be wrong and should be referred to the attached order and asked to confirm under which provision they say he is prohibited from having supervised contact.
Will PPU/probation finally accept this or will we still have to fight this?
'If he got into relationship with someone that had children then full disclosure by social services would need to be done for 'unsupervised contact' OR consent of parents; And the same to live in the household. There is no need for social services input in either case if parent with knowledge of convictions consents.
If Defendant wanted to go out with his mum, her friend and their children then provided he is not left alone with the children then that is supervised contact against which there is no prohibition.
If his PPU says something different, they would appear to be wrong and should be referred to the attached order and asked to confirm under which provision they say he is prohibited from having supervised contact.
Will PPU/probation finally accept this or will we still have to fight this?
That sounds positive. The most they could do is put a referral into ss for the other children but as the parents are aware and give consent that should be the end of it, especially with your email chain of proof xxx
Your solicitors understanding of the SHPO is in line with they way my son's SHPO is managed. I'm pleased you were able to get the clarity you needed.
I mean it is exactly how its written, why is his ppu saying different? Made me so angry, how many others has been told this and then fear the repercussions and just accept it, many I bet! X x