"You have left your children home alone with a paedophile."

[Light Travelling]

but as a mother, one has to be more careful in who they choose as a partner and when ends up living with them for years and if their are signs that are ignored, it is also the fault of the parent.

how unrealistic would it be for a woman to just excuse herself everytime by stating that she did not know when there were signs or if there is no record? .

Would you apply the same rules to a divorced man meeting a new girlfriend? I bet not.

 

[birch]

So if a woman enters into any relationship, she is submitting herself to the male partner?

Is that how you view women?


Again, you are focusing solely on the fact that she had sex with him. We know she had sex with him since they had 3 children.

I am astounded that in the face of a complete and utter fuck up by the authorities, that you can only focus on the fact that she had sex with him.


There is no doubt in this instance.

Again, why are you obsessing over the fact that she had a sexual relationship with this man?


Again, you blame the woman.

The only people who knew he was a paedophile were the authorities. They decided to not tell her at all, until she had left the children alone with him. After she returned home and she found out her daughter had been raped by him, they took all of the children from her care because she failed to protect them from a sex offender. They did not remove the children from the house while she was in the hospital, which actually would have made more sense. They told her first, she checked herself out of hospital immediately and returned home and found out that her daughter had been raped. That is when they removed the children from her care. Emphasis on the "her", because by that point, the children were solely in her care.


Actually no.

I understand you seem to have this need to blame the woman for this. But what it points to is that DOCS are again trying to cover their backside. DOCS would have no reason to investigate a mother for yelling at her child unless they felt the children were at risk in that house. Ergo, they knew the man was a paedophile, and instead of telling her, they decided to investigate that she yelled at a toddler...


The OP actually asks why the mother was not told that her partner was a paedophile a lot sooner - as in why wasn't she told that when she started seeing him. And in that way, he was the one being protected, not her and daughter.


The topic is quite clear cut. That people keep getting side tracked that a woman had sex with a man out of wedlock and blaming her as a result of that is not my problem. Those individuals are the ones with the problem.


I have to wonder why you are bothering to participate in this thread if you feel that is all.


Bingo.

Which begs the question. Why are people focusing on the woman instead of the authorities who had the knowledge and chose not to tell her?

Most importantly, why are people focusing on blaming her and not discussing whether privacy laws should apply in situations where paedophiles are entering into relationships with people who have children, resulting in the other not being told that he/she is a paedophile? Who is the police protecting in not disclosing to potential partners that the individual is a sex offender?

why are you making a big deal out of this situation as if it is impossible that the woman may have had even blatant signs but ignored it?

what about people who don't have a record? is a woman not responsible to pay attention and just rely on the law or a record?

again, this case is so open and shut according to this evidence but why are you upset that people may scrutinize or wonder if she may have some responsiblity? you live in australia, we don't. why aren't you telling us why they protect the criminal by keeping the records closed.

i don't understand why you post something so obvious as a topic. what did you expect?

 

[birch]

Would you apply the same rules to a divorced man meeting a new girlfriend? I bet not.

of course but we know statistically that men tend to do the majority of the sexual crimes so as a woman she needs to be even more careful. so let's stop feigning there.

 

[Bells]

why are you making a big deal out of this situation as if it is impossible that the woman may have had even blatant signs but ignored it?

I find it surprising in an instance of a complete and utter cluster fuck by the authorities, people still choose to focus solely on the woman with imaginings that she must have known and ignored it.

what about people who don't have a record? is a woman not responsible to pay attention and just rely on the law or a record?

Are you suggesting that women are to treat all men as being potential sex offenders and paedophiles at all times because the authorities will not be telling her if her potential partner is a sex offender or paedophile?

again, this case is so open and shut according to this evidence but why are you upset that people may scrutinize or wonder if she may have some responsiblity? you live in australia, we don't. why aren't you telling us why they protect the criminal by keeping the records closed.

If a case is so open and shut, why are you participating in this debate?

Ah yes, to blame the woman and mother.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that all of Australia is governed under the same laws. It is not. This particular case happened in New South Wales. That is a State within the country.

I have stated this many times in this thread and I have also posed the question about privacy laws and sex offenders and the register many times in this thread. That has been ignored by you and a few others because you are all too busy focusing on the mother for (a) "spreading her legs"; (b) not giving his name to the police 'just in case', because apparently in the US, women call the police and tell the police they are entering into a relationship with so and so.. just in case; (c) not being vigilant enough... etc.

i don't understand why you post something so obvious as a topic. what did you expect?

I guess I expected people to think with their brains instead of acting like sexist twats and automatically blaming the woman for having sex outside of wedlock, instead of actually focusing on the issues presented in this case, without even looking at the authorities who have blatantly acted wrongly. But I guess it is easier to blame the mother.. after all.. she dared to have sex outside of wedlock, or as another quaintly put it in this thread 'spread her legs'.

Questions from the OP are quite basic. Should the authorities tell potential partners that they may be becoming involved with a sex offender? Should privacy laws pertaining to the register (which are in place to protect those on that register from public harm) be waived in such instances?

 

[birch]

I find it surprising in an instance of a complete and utter cluster fuck by the authorities, people still choose to focus solely on the woman with imaginings that she must have known and ignored it.


Are you suggesting that women are to treat all men as being potential sex offenders and paedophiles at all times because the authorities will not be telling her if her potential partner is a sex offender or paedophile?


If a case is so open and shut, why are you participating in this debate?

Ah yes, to blame the woman and mother.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that all of Australia is governed under the same laws. It is not. This particular case happened in New South Wales. That is a State within the country.

I have stated this many times in this thread and I have also posed the question about privacy laws and sex offenders and the register many times in this thread. That has been ignored by you and a few others because you are all too busy focusing on the mother for (a) "spreading her legs"; (b) not giving his name to the police 'just in case', because apparently in the US, women call the police and tell the police they are entering into a relationship with so and so.. just in case; (c) not being vigilant enough... etc.

really? and what happened here-->"It was not the first time the man, while on the child protection register, had moved in with a woman and abused her daughter. His last victim was just 13 months old when he committed an act of indecency on her.

In that case, the police had previously warned the baby's mother that her new partner was a registered child offender - but she stayed with him."

what i mean by an open and shut case is obviously they should be held responsible for not telling her which you keep saying i or others are ignoring. everyone on this thread agrees with that as it's so obvious but what seems equally strange is you are not open to the idea at all that she may have some personal responsiblity as in signs or behavior.

it's true that it's speculation but it did open up dialogue regarding that which is important, don't you think?

don't you think that there are many people that can feign ignorance and irresponsibility when they may in fact could have prevented it?

 

[Light Travelling]

i would have been able to tell them i was also being beaten and abused. they never did ask me, the child nor did they ever come and investigate my home. of course, they would have put on an act but still this example illustrates how the law can only do so much and know so much. .

Ok you obviously have a very subjective view on this. But put yourself I the position of a single mother, who wants a normal relationship like everyone else, who needs help to support herself and her children. She is obviously vulnerable in this situation but not totally culpable. If you want to go back to the root cause of this situation look at the child’s father, make laws to make him stay with wife and child and this would never arise. All too easy to be self-righteous and judgemental about a lone woman just trying to cope with life..

 

[birch]

Ok you obviously have a very subjective view on this. But put yourself I the position of a single mother, who wants a normal relationship like everyone else, who needs help to support herself and her children. She is obviously vulnerable in this situation but not totally culpable. If you want to go back to the root cause of this situation look at the child’s father, make laws to make him stay with wife and child and this would never arise. All too easy to be self-righteous and judgemental about a lone woman just trying to cope with life..

no, actually i am being more objective. i know this is speculation but it's also just as blind to assume that women in these situations have no responsiblity when in fact they may have. people are taking this more personally when they don't know this woman. this topic can be used to speculate or why else bring up this topic that is so, again, obvious. they did not tell her and of course they are at major fault. again, in real life, you cannot just count on the police or the law.

i was just making people think and consider what's behind and what else could be there besides the obvious 'evidence'.

my subjective experience is more realistic than this assumption that people are just vulnerable and never culpable.

Questions from the OP are quite basic. Should the authorities tell potential partners that they may be becoming involved with a sex offender? Should privacy laws pertaining to the register (which are in place to protect those on that register from public harm) be waived in such instances?

i'm sorry, i assumed this forum was intelligent and beyond third grade logic. i thought the answers to these questions would be obvious to anyone and that you were just patronizing the obvious.

 

[Cifo]

Women need to be careful of paedophiles, rapists, wife beaters and alcoholics.

Uh-oh, Light. I think someone on this forum has a bone to pick with you. According to this person, women in NSW have “absolutely” no way of knowing anything about the man they’re having sex with. Apparently they just lie back, close their eyes, and hope that the authorities tell them all about the guy.

So, do the words banging, boinking, bonking, humping, screwing, and/or shagging work for you. If “spreading her legs” sounds too submissive, I used it for effect because it parallels the fact that she submitted herself and her family to him. Obviously. The fact being, she made him an intimate part of her life and her family’s life.

So if a woman enters into any relationship, she is submitting herself to the male partner?

I think that, yes, being the penetratee, she is submitting herself to the penetrator. And, if my memory serves me properly, “having sex” is a major prerequisite to “living together”. Then she left him in charge of the children while she checked into the hospital. So, yeah, she submitted herself and her family to him. Again, the fact being, she made him an intimate part of her life and her family’s life as someone in a position of authority.

You have no idea of this woman’s sexual history, so claiming she’s “spreading her legs” is quite astounding.

She apparently had three children by him, so my claim of her having sex with him is, in fact, quite reasonable ... unless she’s the Virgin Mary reincarnated. Actually, the article, once again, does not affirmatively state who the father is

Again, you are focusing solely on the fact that she had sex with him. We know she had sex with him since they had 3 children.
I am astounded that in the face of a complete and utter fuck up by the authorities, that you can only focus on the fact that she had sex with him.

Uhh.... Bells, does this looks like you baited me? I simply replied to your charge that I supposedly made a “quite astounding” claim that she was having sex with him.

The only people who knew he was a paedophile were the authorities. They decided to not tell her at all, until she had left the children alone with him. After she returned home and she found out her daughter had been raped by him, they took all of the children from her care because she failed to protect them from a sex offender. They did not remove the children from the house while she was in the hospital, which actually would have made more sense. They told her first, she checked herself out of hospital immediately and returned home and found out that her daughter had been raped. That is when they removed the children from her care. Emphasis on the “her”, because by that point, the children were solely in her care.

Again, the only news article on this story does not clearly state who knew what and when.
* Where in the article does it say that she didn't know he was a pedophile?
* Where does it say that the authorities knew he was a pedophile living there all the while?
* Where does it say that they didn’t remove the children while she was hospitalized?
* Where does it say that they removed her children from her care, where you made it most emphatic that they were under her care at the time?
Please show where the news article states these supposed facts.

DOCS would have no reason to investigate a mother for yelling at her child unless they felt the children were at risk in that house. Ergo, they knew the man was a paedophile, and instead of telling her, they decided to investigate that she yelled at a toddler.

This is a ridiculous supposition.

 

[Bells]

Uh-oh, Light. I think someone on this forum has a bone to pick with you. According to this person, women in NSW have “absolutely” no way of knowing anything about the man they’re having sex with. Apparently they just lie back, close their eyes, and hope that the authorities tell them all about the guy.

That was not what I or anyone else has said. You have come out and said that she should have gone to the police and given his name. In other words, she should have treated like a sex offender and paedophile regardless.

I think that, yes, being the penetratee, she is submitting herself to the penetrator. And, if my memory serves me properly, “having sex” is a major prerequisite to “living together”. Then she left him in charge of the children while she checked into the hospital. So, yeah, she submitted herself and her family to him. Again, the fact being, she made him an intimate part of her life and her family’s life as someone in a position of authority.

So any notion of both parties being equal in a relationship is a foreign concept to you? The woman has to submit herself to the man?

Why do you assume that he was someone in a position of authority in the relationship? Because he is male?

Uhh.... Bells, does this looks like you baited me? I simply replied to your charge that I supposedly made a “quite astounding” claim that she was having sex with him.

"Uhh" no, I was responding with astonishment with your continued obsession that this woman had sex/spread her legs/submitted.

* Where in the article does it say that she didn't know he was a pedophile?

Did you read the article? Yes? No?

"TO the unsuspecting young mother he was the man who promised a bright new future for her and her daughter.

They fell in love and she had three more children."

(Source)
​

Note the word "unsuspecting".

* Where does it say that the authorities knew he was a pedophile living there all the while?

Is it hard to put two and two together?

How did DOCS know he was a paedophile? Then of course we have the police, who had been monitoring his movements and keeping record, as indicated in the article:

In that case, the police had previously warned the baby's mother that her new partner was a registered child offender - but she stayed with him.

The man has another unrelated conviction for indecent assault of a child under 10.

In the past decade he has worked in a childcare centre, as a cleaner in shopping mall toilets and as a community volunteer.

----------------------------

Police said those on the child protection register were required to tell police their address, where they work, travel plans, whether they have contact with children and the details of their car.

The commander of the sex crimes squad Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec said there was almost 100 per cent compliance with legislation.


(Source)
​

Now, what does that tell you?

* Where does it say that they didn’t remove the children while she was hospitalized?

Again, reading and comprehension..

It was only when she was in hospital with complications with her pregnancy late last year that a DOCS caseworker told her: "You have left your children home alone with a paedophile."

The woman checked herself out of a hospital in the NSW Mid-North Coast only to discover her now 10-year-old daughter from a previous relationship had been raped by the pervert.

The woman said DOCS, initially called in to investigate her for allegedly yelling at her toddler, then removed all four children on the grounds that she had failed to protect them from a sex offender.


(Source)
​

Please note the events as they happened. Pay particular emphasis on the word "then", as it has particular meaning to your questions.

She was hospitalised with complications from her pregnancy with their third child. DOCS then came to see her at the hospital and told her that she had "left the children at home alone with a paedophile". She checked herself out of hospital and returned home. Upon returning home, she discovered that her 10 year old daughter had been raped by her partner. As the story states, DOCS "then" removed the children from her care because she had apparently failed to protect them from a sex offender.

They did not remove the children before they came to see her at the hospital. They removed the children after she had returned home and discovered that her 10 year old daughter had already been raped.

Those first few paragraphs use very simple language and list the events in chronological order. It really is not that hard to follow.

This is a ridiculous supposition.

I have worked in the legal sector and as a Prosecuting solicitor for many years in Australia. At present I work for a Federal Department that deals specifically with children. During my career, I have had quite a bit of contact with DOCS in various states. DOCS in NSW, as with other states in Australia, would not investigate a woman for yelling at her toddler unless there was a threat of abuse or she was on file for abuse - none of which is stated in this article.. What the article does say is that they were "initially called in to investigate her for allegedly yelling at her toddler". Which is bizarre in and of itself.

They knew the man was a paedophile. Yet they did not remove the children from that house while she was in the hospital. Instead, they chose to first go to the hospital and tell her that she had left her children alone with a paedophile. The woman then returned home and it was after that that they removed the children from her care because she had apparently failed to protect them from him. Yet, in the time since they found out until they told her, they allowed those children to remain in his care, preferring instead to tell her that while she was in hospital. I have never once heard of any child protection agency doing that. What they should have done was to remove the children first and foremost. But they did not. They went and told her first, then after she had returned home, they then removed them from her care.

 

[Light Travelling]

of course but we know statistically that men tend to do the majority of the sexual crimes so as a woman she needs to be even more careful. so let's stop feigning there.

This is true, but sexual abuse is not the only type of abuse and women are equally as capable of inflicting physical and emotional abuse on step children...

 

[Cifo]

This is a ridiculous supposition.

I have never once heard of any child protection agency doing that.

So we both agree. It makes no sense that DOCS informed her that he’s a pedophile, then showed up to investigate a yelling incident (which they wouldn’t do anyway).

Please note the events as they happened.

Okay then, per the article:

1. Unsuspecting mother … blah blah … fell in love, three more kids

2. Complications … checks into the hospital

3. “You have left your children home alone with a paedophile”

4. Check out, run home, discovers the rape [AND DOES NOT REPORT IT]

5. DOCS investigates yelling, discovers the [UNREPORTED] rape, and removes children

 

[visceral_instinct]

Why the FUCK are we all choosing to blame the woman?

Yeah, she might have noticed something weird in his voice, or body language. Those things don't tell you someone is a pedophile.

The fact is the authorities knew he was a pedophile and chose to keep this to themselves. You dismiss that as an aside, but you expect her to psychically sense that the guy is a pedophile?

But hey, everything is women's fault. Can't get laid? Blame it on those bitches. Social problems? Narcotics? Yup, women's fault. If those whores would only stay in the kitchen, we'd all be okay.

You people make me want to puke.

 

[birch]

Why the FUCK are we all choosing to blame the woman?

Yeah, she might have noticed something weird in his voice, or body language. Those things don't tell you someone is a pedophile.

The fact is the authorities knew he was a pedophile and chose to keep this to themselves. You dismiss that as an aside, but you expect her to psychically sense that the guy is a pedophile?

But hey, everything is women's fault. Can't get laid? Blame it on those bitches. Social problems? Narcotics? Yup, women's fault. If those whores would only stay in the kitchen, we'd all be okay.

You people make me want to puke.

no, it's called scrutinizing and questioning instead of being gullible and taking this at superficial face value.

how many times does it need to be repeated that if the woman really is innocent, then she is innocent.

but we really don't know that. and the point is in these situations, she may have really failed or even was complicit. often, things are allowed to escalate until something full-blown like this happens. i can't count how many times i've heard almost the same story in group and how thier mothers failed to protect them and it's not a matter of not knowing. it was escalating abuse or inappropriate behavior that lead to even more bold moves. the girl is too young right now but we'll see what she has to say in the future and what she knows was going on in that household.

your shallow assessment is indicative that you don't know about these situations very well to even question beyond what seems to be in front of you.

 

[visceral_instinct]

no, it's called scrutinizing and questioning instead of being gullible and taking this at superficial face value.

how many times does it need to be repeated that if the woman really is innocent, then she is innocent.

but we really don't know that. and the point is in these situations, she may have really failed or even was complicit. often, things are allowed to escalate until something full-blown like this happens. i can't count how many times i've heard almost the same story in group and how thier mothers failed to protect them and it's not a matter of not knowing. it was escalating abuse or inappropriate behavior that lead to even more bold moves. the girl is too young right now but we'll see what she has to say in the future and what she knows was going on in that household.

your shallow assessment is indicative that you don't know about these situations very well to even question beyond what seems to be in front of you.

You don't know anything else about it either, but for some reason you've chosen to focus on the woman and what you feel she probably did wrong. Why?

 

[Bells]

So we both agree. It makes no sense that DOCS informed her that he’s a pedophile, then showed up to investigate a yelling incident (which they wouldn’t do anyway).





Okay then, per the article:

1. Unsuspecting mother … blah blah … fell in love, three more kids

2. Complications … checks into the hospital

3. “You have left your children home alone with a paedophile”

4. Check out, run home, discovers the rape [AND DOES NOT REPORT IT]

5. DOCS investigates yelling, discovers the [UNREPORTED] rape, and removes children

You have added so many things to this case, that you are basically making it up as you go along. Can you point out where in the article does it state that the rape was not reported?

Or are you pulling this out of your anus, because you know, you need to blame her for it again.

DOCS investigated her when she was in the hospital.

I mean really, if you are going to come to this thread to troll, then leave now. Because at the moment, that is what it looks like you are doing.

 

[Cifo]

The article does not say that she reported the rape, so it would be wrong for me to claim that she did.

 

[John99]

Dont they have pedophile registers in Australia?

If you meet a guy and decide to have him around your children when you are not home then you should look into it.

It is probably illegal for the govt. to get involved before any new crime and this is because of liberal litigation.