March 15, 2010
-
Sex Offender Father
A judge has ruled that a sex offending father can have his daughters spend the night at his house as long as “he puts a door on their bedroom they can lock.”
The judge felt the girls needed “some protection from (their father), particularly at night. He felt the risk of sexual abuse “diminished when they are awake and alert.”
The father was convicted of downloading child pornography and was also found to have “invited one of the girls into his bed, and had ‘demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age.’”
The thinking was that as long as the girls were “awake, dressed and together it would be unlikely the father would act inappropriately toward them.” It was also found that “when they were asleep or partly asleep and not aware of each other’s whereabouts, they would be less secure.”
An adult has to stay in the house with him when they have the sleepover. Here is the link: Link
As long as there is a lock on the door, do you think the father should be able to have his daughters spend the night?
Comments (105)
Uhh.. yes.
WRONG.
@XAngelExpress31X - you took my spot! >:O
NO. He should lose all rights to contact with his children.
nope.
okay, wtf? NO. how is this even debatable?
What goes on in the Land Down Under stays in the Land Down Under.
Hell fuck no!!! his daughters should never even be left alone with him!! i swear this world is so fucked up!! for a judge to not even take his daughters away is pretty stupid!!! This man is obviously sick and he should not even be aloud near his daughters!
I don’t think rapists should be allowed to breed. But if they’ve already done it, then they should at least not be given parental rights.
my father refused me the locks. but locks would have been better then nothing, but I’d have lived in total fear he’d break down the door and beat me senseless. I think it would be very AWKWARD to bring dad home too soon after the family secret is finally busted. it’s a very delicate situation.
He should be allowed to spend time with his kids, but not like that, no. There should be someone else present at all times when he is with them.
Yes. Parent’s rights.
My feeling is that the criminal record of the father should be able to translate to specific and tangible danger to the child before the preponderance of his right as a father can be taken away from him. Merely having odd pornographic habits and hugging other people’s kids the wrong way doesn’t mean that he intends to molest his own child.
The judge seems to strike a sensible balance between fundamental rights and precaution.
No.
However, if I’m the daddy, I say there’s no need for secrets and there’s no need for locks.
;D
Whose mind thought this was a fantastic solution? Put a lock on it.
@TheSmokeMonster - I agree. Also, the requirement that another adult be present will go along way towards preventing disaster.
@TheSmokeMonster - I think you’re seriously downplaying the gravity of his actions.
I think it should be the daughter’s choice whether she wants to spend time with her father or not. I think the judge should have set an age restiction, no visits until the girl is 10, and only then can the daughter choose to allow him near her.
The girls are old enough that their wishes should be honored.
uhhh NO! Like wth?!?!?! They should NOT be sleeping over at his house AT ALL! In fact, they should not be left alone with him at all:|
@PervyPenguin - But you aren’t the daddy, so the kids stay with a pedophile instead. Why couldn’t you be born earlier? Now, if I were the daddy, they would be forced to read my Xanga, which is a serious crime against mankind, but surprisingly not a legal crime in any state (though I’m sure some states are writing laws about it).
@TheSmokeMonster - In the link :
The father was convicted in 2007 of three child pornography offences, including filming images of child pornography on his computer. He also created links and shortcuts to child porn sites.
Filming child porn?? I think that poses a big risk to his daughters.
What is wrong with the judges in our country? He gave up his rights to that child when he did what he did. When the child becomes an adult and can make their own mind up then fine, until then the dad MUST live with the circumstances HE caused.
eww, no
@And_I_love - I’m afraid I would beat a man to a pulp if I caught one molesting a child. I think my rage would absolutely take over my body. I’m so sorry you had a dad like that. It’s just wrong for men to act that way I don’t care WHAT their childhood was like.
Hell to the NO!
no. he should not be trusted.
Fuck no.
Hell to the no.
Good golly, NO.
HELL NO! Castrate the fucker and throw him in jail.
Is this judge crazy? I think some of them are. If it were supervised visits then fine, but no sleepovers.
I don’t even want to think about this. How on earth could his children feel even remotely safe let alone actually be safe? A big NO!
No.
@Drewsius - I think you’re seriously downplaying the gravity of his actions.
The stripping of something as sacred as parenthood shouldn’t be done as an added means of punishment. The question of his fitness as a parent should be treated seperately from his criminal conduct.
If there is a likely or past abuse to the daughter– then sure, the fucker deserves to be quarantined from his kids. Many murderers, car-jackers, and gang bangers are parents too. Having commited crime usually mean that the person has become some sub-human creature incapable of love of his own child.
@radicalsounds - [3 cases of child porn] I think that poses a big risk to his daughters.
How? How would the past dissemination of some pictures put to risk his daughter? Sure. It’s ‘o too easy to imagine some sick scenario for sub-human scum; but I don’t think our imagination should be as tangible as to take away from a father his basic rights as a parent.
I’d agree with your underlying concern: Safety of the child needs to be heavily weighed. But I’d look for something more concrete before casting that sort of judgement.
All precautions should be taken. Perhaps he can see them in a public area monitored by law enforcement.
Hell no! A child is going to listen to the adult because that’s what they probably have been taught to do. It doesn’t matter if they stick together, children in those situations don’t want to anger the adult or they want to obey and be a “good girl” The younger they are, the more likely they’ll listen to whatever he says, whether or not there’s a lock on the door.
Parental rights my ass! He should have lost that when he took one of his daughters in his room the way he did! If he did it once, he would do it again. Like he couldn’t get around their locked door. SO ridiculous, those poor little girls. Shouldn’t it be somewhat their decision too?
hell no.
And people don’t always have sex at night in a bedroom. He can rape his daughters at any time of the day, in any room of his house.
This is such a stupid ruling.
@Lady_Kelacy - I second what you said.
@Alyxandri - Thank you.
definitely not. he obviously is into children, and he obviously is into his OWN children because he tried to come onto one of them…. so in that case NO it is not appropriate.
and his kids shouldn’t have to have it explained to them they need to lock their door at night because daddy wants to touch them… that’s just sick.
nope
are you SERIOUS. honestly now. honestly?
if the girls needed someone to take care of them at night, how about sleepover
at grandparents? or aunt/uncles?
no, there MUST be someone with the kids other than him at the sleepover.
wtf? he needs to have no contact with those kids… at least until he’s had his nuts cut off and serious therapy.
@Kiwigummy - i agree but i’d put an older age on it…say 12 or 13
he lost all his rights when he became a sex offender
wow, seriously? sex offenders don’t deserve ANY rights, much less the right to be near innocent children.
Why is spending the night even an option?! I could stretch for visitation…but there had better be someone there with them. Omg, I can’t even imagine their mother being alright with this.
I think that the children should not be able to spend the night at all. Visitation possibly with another adult for supervision. Unfortunatley he has demonstrated that he has an illness and it will not ratify itself overnight(if ever). His children are at risk if they are permitted to remain with him overnight.
A thousand times NO!!
@TheSmokeMonster - Whatcha smokin’, cuz?
fuck. no.
No. But as long as there’s another adult, yeah, I guess. Although even then, the adult might be asleep, or worse, since the “adult” is not specified, it could be a sex-offending friend.
So no, on all occasions.
my answer is definitely no! I mean its fine he should still be able to see his kids but spend the night? NO NO NO! I wouldn’t be able to trust him myself that’s just disgusting
Insane.
No.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
what is wrong with this JUDGE? doesn’t he see any power dynamics here and a big difference in maturity level?
This is psychological abuse in the first degree…
The judge needs to be punished.
Some specialist for the father… these things are quite common and in many cases we don’t even see or notice anything wrong with it – but there are some that are noticable, and when they are it’s kinda too late.
Father, or any parent with such impulsive actions towards the his/her children should find some help or something like that – or from starter not to have kids at all its like a handicap, not suitable to be proper parent.
If it was you, no.
NO! That man should never see his children again. For THEIR SAKE.
My wonderment at the commentary is ceaseless.
A lock on the door alone won’t protect them. An adult in the house with them might help but that isn’t fool-proof either. It’s sad that these girls are going to be forced to spend time with this monster until he actually harms one of them.
Hell, no! What an ignorant judge. Has this guy ever watched Forrest Gump? I’ve heard plenty of stories about pervy fathers molesting their daughters in broad daylight within the confines of their house (real stories, not just movies).
Not with those given circumstances.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - Don’t blame our judges – this case is in Australia.
Given that the father is a threat to the children, which is the judge’s own stated view, of course the children shouldn’t be made to stay there. What’s especially striking to me is that the eldest daughter has stated that she is afraid and doesn’t want to stay alone with her father. What sickening madness.
I don’t think it’s a good idea if his history is bad. I think they can visit him supervised, but not stay the night.
PS FGS people, how are you all so ignorant as to believe in exactly what a news paper tells you? And how, HOW do you regard your own judgement (just from reading a biased, sensationalised article) over that of someone your intellectual superior? Not just that- someone with EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE in these kinds of cases?
Obviously I’m not in support of paedophiles, but this man has never physically offended. He has looked at child porn, which is terrible as it condones what is done to that child, but he has totally repressed his physical urges- which is something to go by. Let me stress now though that he should be punished and he should not be allowed to see his children without supervision.
He should be allowed to spend time with them, under proper supervision. Unfortunately he was born with some kind of cognitive/neurological defect that meant he was attracted to children rather than adults. BUT as long as someone never acted on this urge I would defend their human rights to the grave. He, though, DID do something morally wrong and thus should lose the right to see his children alone. He enforced access to child porn sites (linking people) and had the pornography on his computer. If he had the morals to NOT touch a child though, he should have the morals to feel terrible guilt for watching that pornography.
A lot of paedophiles kill themselves without ever having committed ANY offence. Why? Tremendous disgust at their own feelings. These people need HELP, not discrimination (as long as they have not committed an offence.) What about those who suffered it as a child and just have the urge to act it out again? They are victims. As long as they have not committed a crime, we need to help them, not shun them.
A few years back the names of people on the Paedophile Register were released into the public via the Daily Mail; one man, 60 years old, had signed himself up because he felt the moral obligation. He, however, had never ever offended in any way. I think signing himself up was an admirable thing to do, and yet, just for something he could not control his feelings for, his home was invaded a few days later and he was brutally murdered by an angry mob. That disgusts me.
This difference, of course, is that THIS guy had watched child porn, where children are exploited. The law has a responsibility to protect his children- not because HE WILL hurt them, but because there is higher risk he will. I think we should trust the experience of a Judge who has had at least 30 years legal experience and members of a Jury who have seen ALL the evidence, not just a highly sensationalised article (http://www.news.com.au/national/girls-ordered-to-spend-weekends-with-sex-offender-father/story-e6frfkvr-1225840653601) The girls will not have been ordered. They would never, ever be forced to spend time with him. They may be afraid, which is understandable, but no one COULD make them see him.
My take on it is that another adult should be in the house. Also, yeah, I think the locks thing IS good idea.
NO!! Not at all.
Oh hell NO! If anything happens to those girls, the judge should should face charges for not protecting them.
@chaospet - Sorry, didn’t read the link.
Locks? Has anyone SEEN the flimsy “locks” on bedroom doors? Come on! No… definitely not.
Nope.
@bryonyinsua -PS FGS people, how are you all so ignorant as to believe in exactly what a news paper tells you? And how, HOW do you regard your own judgement (just from reading a biased, sensationalised article) over that of someone your intellectual superior?
Hey, lazy bitch– if you have rebutting arguments, then make it in a reply. You don’t win your case by simply gesturing to another person with a bigger head or a more experienced brain. Arguments stand on their own merits, and to beat them down, you have to point out exactly where and how they’re flawed.
You should also realize that many of the comments here constitute guttural outrage, and not measured responses. We don’t all have the interest to do the same fucking research nor the time to sit back and ponder.
There’s also an adult there, though.
Regardless of the lock on the door and the spare adult (who could be sleeping), heck no! The guy is a perv and has already demonstrated crude behavior toward one of his kids. He doesn’t deserve to see them at all. He needs help with his issue…not help having easier access to kids.
@bryonyinsua - It seems pretty obvious that IF the father had acted inappropriately and is a threat to the children, they shouldn’t be spending the night in his home. I wouldn’t presume to evaluate the antecedent of that conditional on the basis of the limited evidence given in a news article.
But we do have good justification for thinking that it is the view of the court that he is a threat (hence the locks), and that he has acted inappropriately in the past – having invited a daughter into his bed and “demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age” (from the Family Court’s ruling). If that is indeed the view of the court, then the ruling is wrong. Sometimes even people with considerable experience can make mistakes – poor judges do exist in the world, believe it or not.
NO
Maybe after he had been castrated and knee-capped.
After he invited one of the girls into his bed and was affectionate in a way deemed inapporpriate AND the eldest daughter is scared to be alone with him…. HECK NO! This judge is also as ignorant as ever! I was fully awake and dressed, and there were other people in the house, when my father sexually abused me! It CAN and DOES happen, and this judge is just opening that door for it to happen! What an idiot!
and really, if there has to special measures taken to protect these girls ( a lock and another adult present ) it’s probably not the smartest idea anyway!!
no… that’s stupid
If I were the child I probably wouldn’t want to spend the night and if I were the mother I’d sure as hell wouldn’t want my kids over there. I had to let them I would perfer that I go with and that we have a lock on the door.
No. His daughters should never be left alone with him.
Fuck no. I’ve been molested twice and it’s not worth it to risk him touching his daughters and having that stay with them for the rest of their lives. I think it’s more tolerable that another adult must be in the house but if a child has to lock their door in fear of their parent doing something to harm them, that parent should not be allowed any contact with the child for the sake of the CHILD. Every child needs their parents but not when there’s a possibility they could damage them more physically or emotionally than just not having the parent around at all would. I also understand that it’s an illness that they can’t always help and thats unfortunate but needs to be treated just like any other illness people don’t have control over. This whole story kind of pisses me off. I’m trying to be open minded in the sense that he should be allowed to see his kids especially with a trusted adult in the house but who’s to say that adult can REALLY be trusted? And who’s to say he won’t touch them in the day time? He lost his rights when he took on the title “Sex offender.”
What do the daughters want? That’s the most important question.
If they’re even the slightest bit uncomfortable or hesitant, than absoluetly not. Not with locks or another adult in the house, why subject a child to feeling unsafe when it’s absolutely unessecary. If he cares for their feelings he wouldn’t want to make them any more uneasy than they must already be.
I don’t even understand the purpose; the man should have a restricting order away from his daughters.
this is heinous. little girls cannot protect themselves from a full-grown man.
this man should be locked away.
As long as there is someone supervising the visit. If the children stay overnight, the supervisor must also stay in that house, if not the same room as the children.
@TheSmokeMonster - How about children’s rights? If he’s abusive and they DON’T WANT TO SEE HIM, they should have that right. Besides, there’s no reason they have to stay the night in order to see him – they can visit during the day.
Children are smarter than we give them credit for.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - What? You’re still on Xanga?
absolutely discusting
NO. He should have supervised visits only.
What kinda of stupid question is that? The eldest daughter said she is afraid to sleep there. It’s supposed to be the governments job to protect young children. I don’t give a crap if that’s her father. He lost the right to have his kids over when he started looking at child porn. If he rapes his daughters it’s on the judges ass.
i feel really bad for those girls.
Ok, after reading the article, I think that if the girl doesn’t feel safe, then she shouldn’t have to spent the nite. Let him spend time with them during the day and all that stuff. Requiring another adult to be in the house is a good idea too. Dad obviously needs help, and there is really no reason to invite trouble. It’s kinda a would he or wouldn’t he? and isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?
Absolutely NOT! He should not be around children period. Sex offenders and predators are just that…predators! It doesn’t matter that it’s their own daughter. Why don’t you ask the judge if he would let his daughters, or neices spend the night at a convicted sex offenders house!!!
No.
Probably not. It seems like they’re asking for trouble, but it should be different depending on the crime.
No. Just…no. What if the other adult falls asleep? And who CAN’T break a door down. Seriously… I think it would traumatic for the children, especially considering he has behaved inappropriately before…
@TheSmokeMonster - Occasionally.
@TheSmokeMonster - so after he rapes them, he shouldn’t be allowed to see them? Isn’t the point of this, prevention? I think the daughters would prefer prevention over rehabilitation any day. Just saying. (I’m trying not to sound mean haha)
That’s a recipe for tragedy if there ever was one. Those children should be removed from that house at once and placed in the custody of a relative… preferably on the distaff side. You just don’t let children live in the same place with a predatory parent. It’s insane! Where do these judges come from?
No! Even if he should be able to have some contact with his children, it should never be during the night or sleepovers. In my opinion, he should lose all rights to ever seeing his daughters, until they’re 18, when the girls can choose to see him, if they wish.