Accomodation for Single Fathers?

gregc

I am in the fortunate position of being responsible for an 8 bed house on the northside of Dublin, close to the city centre.

As a single father of a two year old, I have been lucky in getting access to have my daughter stay with me every second weekend. This, dependent upon providing child friendly accomodation. In order to have your children stay overnight with you, I'm told it is more or less essential to have a 2 bedroom place. I suspect there must be many fathers out there who would love to have their children with them at least some of the time, but cannot afford the €1300 or so a month for a 2 bed place near the city and/or don't really want to be completely alone when they cannot have their kids around them.

I'm conidering letting out the house specifically to single fathers. Each person would have their own bedroom, plus a small single room for their child(ren). There would be a shared childrens playroom, adult reception room, dining room, kitchen and gardens. I would hope that we could create a supportive environment for the fathers and a safe and stimulating environment for the children.

I would like to hear from anyone who would be interested in such accomodation and would be very grateful for any suggestions as to where one might find people who could be interested, and indeed feedback on the concept in general.

Thanks,
Greg

dame

It sounds like you want to do this for genuine reasons, and provide a good and safe place for these children and their fathers. However, I am a mother, and if my child's father told me the child would regularly be sleeping in a room on their own, in a house of men I didn't know and trust, I would have reservations.

gregc

Thanks for the feedback. Have been kinda wondering what mothers might think of the arrangement, and had fears it may be as you say. Interesting, and understandable, you point out that you'd have a concern with the child sleeping alone, however I understand there are great reservations on the judicial front about allowing a child to sleep in a room with their father...

Rozabeez

I'd imagine most mothers would be uncomfortable with this, but maybe having something like CCTV outside the bedrooms to remove any risk of anything happening to the children would help? You never know if you can trust the other people in the house with your kid, and as extreme as it is to install cameras, well its better safe than sorry.

Nevyn

gregc wrote:

however I understand there are great reservations on the judicial front about allowing a child to sleep in a room with their father...

Actually children are rquired to have thier won room for when they are with either parent.
If a single father has his children on a regualr bases then he need a family home to have them in and should be supported in acheiving that.

gregc

Greatly appreciate the comments.

Indeed, supporting fathers in being able to provide a safe family home is the whole idea here. Renting a normal 2 bed place in Dublin is beyond the means of many of the single fathers I have spoken to.

To be honest, I would find the notion that CCTV was required to monitor the house rather offensive, though I might well be willing to go along with it if that was what was required to ensure there could be no possible question with regard to the integrity of the childrens care.

Have had a number of contacts with single mothers interested in the idea. I've primarily held back on this as the social welfare / rent allowance for a single mother would come pretty close to covering rent on appropriate accomodation. However my understanding is that fathers do not receive any additional support unless they have joint custody, which is almost impossible to achieve under Irish law.

So it was more a thought that single fathers where in more need of a solution like this. Would it dramatically change the situation iregarding suitability if it where a combination of single mothers and fathers?

Thank again for the feedback!

The Corinthian

One option would be for the kids to share rooms as opposed to their sharing rooms with the father, which is frankly unworkable beyond a certain age.

As to the strange men comments, people really do have to grow up. All men are not child molesting rapists. I was the phone the other week to someone in Italy, leaving my apartment, and one of the neighbour’s kids stopped me because they heard me speaking in Italian. He and his friends then proceeded to quiz me about languages and so I gave them a few phases in a few of the languages I can speak.

When the father of one of the kids appeared, I bizarrely felt as if I was caught doing something wrong – that somehow there was something creepy about a grown man talking to these boys. I was almost expecting the Paedofinder General to appear at any moment. It’s absolutely ridiculous at this stage how society has become so paranoid about these things that I or any other man would feel themselves in that position simply because they were chatting to the neighbour’s kids. And some of the comments in this thread are based upon that same prejudiced mentality.

Nevyn

and yet at the same time the lack of positive male role models particularly for boys is bemoaned.

Another example would be that a mother pushing her child on the swing if asked by another child on the swing adjacent would to so but I know several fathers who in that situation would not.

Kildrought

However my understanding is that fathers do not receive any additional support unless they have joint custody, which is almost impossible to achieve under Irish law.

This is not quite correct. Where parents were married, guardianship for both parents is automatic; when married parents separate joint custody is the most usual. That does not necessarily mean that the child spends exactly 1/2 the week w. one parent & 1/2 the week with the other, for all sorts of practical reasons this may not be possible.

Where parents are not married, guardianship is not automatic and has to be applied for, generally (but now always) the mother remains the primary carer with arrangements for access to the non-resident parent agreed or made by court order.

In regards to housing, there is most certainly an anomaly where mothers with children receive far more support than fathers with children....but that's another thread.

Rozabeez

The Corinthian wrote:

As to the strange men comments, people really do have to grow up. All men are not child molesting rapists.

That's true, but its hardly worth taking the risk, surely you could see where the mother is coming from?

The Corinthian

Rozabeez wrote:

That's true, but its hardly worth taking the risk, surely you could see where the mother is coming from?

I can see how a company might not want to hire a 25 – 35 year old woman either, given she’s much more likely to go off on maternity leave. I suppose that’s an acceptable prejudice too?

metrovelvet

I think its a good idea in theory.

Concerns:

1. If I were the mother of a teenage or preteenage girl I would be worried about the men going Humbert Humbert or American Beauty on her.

2. The ages and genders of the children mixing in the house. Its not just the fathers who can touch inappropriately.

3. Cleanliness.

4. That there would be a separate bathroom for the girls.

Rozabeez

The Corinthian wrote:

I can see how a company might not want to hire a 25 – 35 year old woman either, given she’s much more likely to go off on maternity leave. I suppose that’s an acceptable prejudice too?

Yes, because someone going on maternity/paternity leave is as big a deal as child molestation...

The Corinthian

Rozabeez wrote:

Yes, because someone going on maternity/paternity leave is as big a deal as child molestation...

It doesn't matter if it's as big a deal or not, it matters that you're basing a prejudice or form of discrimination upon demographics. So if you consider that a sound basis for discrimination, don't start whinging when it works against you.

PinkPrincess26

Kildrought wrote:

In regards to housing, there is most certainly an anomaly where mothers with children receive far more support than fathers with children....but that's another thread.

I dont agree wth this at all, in what way do you think mothers get more support than fathers...

dame

It is a fact that child molesters seek out situations and locations where they will have an opportunity to be around children. One recent report (made news within the last fortnight or so, but I can' find it right now), said that one in seven convicted child molesters admitted choosing their particular profession (whatever it was) because it gave them access to children.

Of course all men are not paedophiles or rapists, but the ones that are don't advertise the fact. Why take a risk with your child?

This book is excellent but it will frighten any parents out there. http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Pedophiles-Offenders-Ourselves-Children/dp/0465071732
It was discussed on the Gerry Ryan show about two years ago and I have since read it.

Would a father be any happier than a mother would, to know that his child would regularly be staying in a house with a number of men he didn't know and trust? If you let your child go on a school trip or club outing you'll want to know the adults working with them have been vetted. Why would you let the same child stay with anyone else who you didn't trust?

I agree with metrovelvet's concerns too.

metrovelvet

The excerpts below are from an article put together by the Mayo Clinic. They tell you who the molestors are and who the victims are, and also what they do.

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf


Pedophiles may engage in a wide range of sexual acts
with children. These activities range from exposing themselves
to children (exhibitionism), undressing a child, looking
at naked children (voyeurism), or masturbating in the
presence of children to more intrusive physical contact,
such as rubbing their genitalia against a child (frotteurism),
fondling a child, engaging in oral sex, or penetration of the
mouth, anus, and/or vagina.3,5,7,9 Generally, pedophiles do
not use force to have children engage in these activities but
instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and
desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching
to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children).
1,5,17,21

The NIBRS
data on juvenile sexual assaults found that 40% of assaults
against children younger than 12 years were committed by
juveniles, with the most frequent age of the offenders being
14 years old.2 Data from the study by Abel and Harlow15
showed that 40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed
as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the
time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child
molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple
acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future
will also meet criteria for pedophilia.9,15 Pedophilic child
molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts
against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.15
In general, most individuals who engage in pedophilia
or paraphilias are male.2-7,9,10

Federal statistics for all reported sexual assaults showed
that 34% of sexually abused children were younger than 12
years and 33% were between the ages of 12 and 17 years
(67% occurred in children and adolescents)2 (Table 2). A
bimodal age distribution was found for the age of the
abused child for all sexual assaults, with peaks occurring at
5 and 14 years of age. For each category of sexual assault,
juveniles constituted most of the abused children, except
for rape (eg, forcible fondling, 84%; forcible sodomy,
79%; sexual assault with an object, 75%; and forcible rape,
46%). In all cases, except for rape, more than half of thoseabused were younger than 12 years. Females were the most
commonly abused, with the percentage of abused females
increasing with age. Juvenile boys who were sexually assaulted
comprised a larger percentage of the total number
of abused children than adult men (18% vs 4%). Juvenile
girls represented a higher percentage in each of the measured
categories except forced sodomy, in which 59% of
the juveniles assaulted were male. Nineteen percent of
juvenile sexual assaults involved 2 or more children, with
younger children more likely to be involved in a group
assault than older children. When more than 1 child was
assaulted, the children were usually of similar age.2

Federal data show that 27% of all sexual offenders assaulted
family members. Fifty percent of offenses committed
against children younger than 6 years were committed
by a family member, as were 42% of acts committed
against children 6 to 11 years old and 24% against children
12 to 17 years old.2 The study by Abel and Harlow15 found
that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family member;
30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or an
adopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their bio-logic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and
5% had molested a grandchild. In the study by Abel et al32
of anonymous nonincarcerated offenders, heterosexual incest
pedophiles had abused 1.8 children and committed
81.3 acts, whereas homosexual incest pedophiles had
abused 1.7 children and committed 62.3 acts.

Nevyn

Rigth I am going to look for a way to split this thread as really it is unfair to gregc who would have his own children there also and would vet those coming to live in his home or visit his home as any good parent would do to protect thier children but while allowing thier child good and postive contact and relationship with people beyond thier parents.

The topic of are single fathers less supported and there for children are less supported and are denied meaningful acess to thier father and there for thier relationship with ther father suffers is welcome in the forum but please start another thread.

The Corinthian

dame wrote:

It is a fact that child molesters seek out situations and locations where they will have an opportunity to be around children.

Are you suggesting that child molesters are likely to become single fathers so they will have an opportunity to be around children?

Of course all men are not paedophiles or rapists, but the ones that are don't advertise the fact. Why take a risk with your child?

Why take the risk? Well, fair enough, but if that is the case then you have to accept that people will choose not to take the risk with you in the future, simply because you fall into an unfortunate demographic.

Regardless of whether it applies to something both criminal and serious as paedophilia or employment law or even car insurance, the principle is the same.

Additionally, it is the very “why take the risk” attitude that has made it practically taboo for adult men to have contact with children in today’s society. And then we get chastised for not being involved enough? Please.

Certainly the house that gregc is suggesting should include careful screening for such individuals, but frankly so should a house full of single mothers. After all, women perpetrate an increasing number of cases of child abuse today and even beyond the topic of child abuse there are numerous reasons why someone may not be suitable for such a house (alcohol or substance abuse, gambling, etc).

Indeed, there’s probably more evidence that a single father would be better qualified for such a house than a single mother. After all, to be allowed to become a single father they will have most likely been put under the microscope by social welfare and the courts, simply because they’re men. Single mothers however are not in any way vetted – all they need to qualify is a working womb.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

The topic of are single fathers less supported and there for children are less supported and are denied meaningful acess to thier father and there for thier relationship with ther father suffers is welcome in the forum but please start another thread.

Upps, sorry - feel free to split my post to another thread.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

Indeed, there’s probably more evidence that a single father would be better qualified for such a house than a single mother. After all, to be allowed to become a single father they will have most likely been put under the microscope by social welfare and the courts, simply because they’re men. Single mothers however are not in any way vetted – all they need to qualify is a working womb.

Vetted? what are they breeding cattle? Charming.

Rozabeez

The Corinthian wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's as big a deal or not, it matters that you're basing a prejudice or form of discrimination upon demographics. So if you consider that a sound basis for discrimination, don't start whinging when it works against you.

What exactly are you trying to argue with me about here? The topic is about accommodation for single fathers, if it were about single mothers I'd suggest the same about the CCTVs. For the child's sake, you really can't be too careful. I'm not suggesting that there's a 100% chance that one of the people in the house is going to be a child-molester, I'm suggesting that there's no point in taking the risk when you never really know the other people in the house.

OP: I still think it's a very good idea, if you were to get some professional advice on it first.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

Vetted? what are they breeding cattle? Charming.

No it's not, but neither is the way that fathers are viewed either - potential child molesting ATM's.

metrovelvet

Why are you bringing up money when this is about sexual abuse? People have already noted that they are not soley concerned about the fathers, but perhaps some of the other residents, [the children themselves].

Statistically, child rapists are men and it frequently happens within the family.

If you had a house full of women with children, there would be a set on different concerns and some similar ones.

I dont think cctv is a solution, since this is about innocence,and protecting innocence and cctv undermines this despite its intention to protect it. Isnt innocence about not being self concious, not feeling like a criminal, isnt the last bastion of childhood, I AM GOOD BECAUSE I EXIST. Wouldn't a panopticon in your second home compromise this?

How sad this is how we have to think now.

Kildrought

in what way do you think mothers get more support than fathers

..as I said....

but that's another thread

Start another one & give your reasons for disagreeing...

there’s probably more evidence that a single father would be better qualified for such a house than a single mother. After all, to be allowed to become a single father they will have most likely been put under the microscope by social welfare and the courts, simply because they’re men

Where's your evidence? 40% of all lone parents have become so through the death of their partner (Census) - I don't see SW getting involved there?

I don't get the 'allowed to become a single father', all that's required to become a 'single father' is to impregnate a woman you are not married to?

Being a parent of course is another story.....

K-9

This thread would really dissapoint me. The OP is trying to help single fathers. I wonder if this was a single mother would there be the same negative comments about partners/boyfriends and how it couldn't happen because of the risk of child abuse.

metrovelvet

^ Yep. Probably more so since they would most likely be with the mothers most of the time. Single mothers have to be so so so careful what men they bring into their and thier children's lives.

K-9

I can just imagine if it was suggested to install CCTV in a house for single mothers. How dare you? We'l protect our children and we don't need CCTV or supervision.

Not getting at single mothers but it seems that it's not PC to say things like this about them but it is ok to say it about single fathers. What next, well we can't let children stay over with fathers, sure he might abuse them? Every single fathers should have CCTV? Why don't we put them on Big Brother sure! :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

I abhor the idea of cctv cameras in any home.

However there is a thread on humanities in which, imo people are showing alarming tolerance for pedophiles which has converted my thinking on this idea of a shared home.

At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I think it is a dangerous one as our communities are growing more and more tolerant of it and are now considering it a sexual preference and parafilia rather than acknowledging it for the sick crime that it is.

If I trusted the culture and community to protect children then we could have places like what OP suggests for both single mothers and fathers who struggle to find affordable and decent shelter for their children.

Boston

metrovelvet wrote:

Statistically, child rapists are men and it frequently happens within the family.

Hardly surprising considering women are not considered to be capable of raping males.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

However there is a thread on humanities in which, imo people are showing alarming tolerance for pedophiles which has converted my thinking on this idea of a shared home.

At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I think it is a dangerous one as our communities are growing more and more tolerant of it and are now considering it a sexual preference and parafilia rather than acknowledging it for the sick crime that it is.

Firstly, something can be both a paraphilia and a sick crime. Just because there's a scientific explanation for something does not either moralize or legalize it.

Secondly, taken to its natural conclusion you're pretty much in the 'all men are (potential) rapists' camp. In which case you should really never let them have unsupervised contact with any men. Even fathers.

By the same logic mothers are suspect too. Incidence of sexual abuse by women is much lower granted, but still exists. Additionally women are just as prone to physical and emotional abuse as - in the case of the latter many would argue more so than - men.

I would thus wholeheartedly support Metrovelvet's CCTV position, but would extend it to keep an eye on mothers and women in general - they may well be HIV infested junkies, after all.

K-9

Boston wrote:

Hardly surprising considering women are not considered to be capable of raping males.

We're on about physical and sexual abuse, both genders are culpable.

metrovelvet wrote:

Single mothers have to be so so so careful what men they bring into their and thier children's lives.

Granted and single fathers have to be careful with their partners but how they behave around their children. Its nearly getting to the stage where you are conscious if you give your child a hug in public.

metrovelevet wrote:

At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I think it is a dangerous one as our communities are growing more and more tolerant of it and are now considering it a sexual preference and parafilia rather than acknowledging it for the sick crime that it is.

Sounds like the arguement against homosexuality for years!
I do think paedophilia is different and is recognised as such, maybe people are recognising it as a disorder and trying to provide cures/treatment. To say it is/will be accepted it ? I don't think so.

Boston wrote:

Hardly surprising considering women are not considered to be capable of raping males.

We're on about all types of abuse here, physical, mental and sexual.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

Firstly, something can be both a paraphilia and a sick crime. Just because there's a scientific explanation for something does not either moralize or legalize it.

Yes but once it enters the American Psychiatric Associations books as a sex preference, that's it, its over.

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, taken to its natural conclusion you're pretty much in the 'all men are (potential) rapists' camp. In which case you should really never let them have unsupervised contact with any men. Even fathers.

:rolleyes: Whatever. Most pedophiles are men DOES NOT = most men are potential rapists. Christ - someone needs to get in their time machine and out of the 90s.

The Corinthian wrote:

By the same logic mothers are suspect too. Incidence of sexual abuse by women is much lower granted, but still exists. Additionally women are just as prone to physical and emotional abuse as - in the case of the latter many would argue more so than - men.

Yes, but oddly people tend to be openly abusive when it comes to the strap or emotional abuse. The problem with sex abuse is that is is physical, emotional, sexual, but also seductive, quiet and in secret.

Go ahead start your women are more physically and emotionally abusive then men arguments. Let me get the popcorn....

Nevyn

I'm I going to have to you two a time out and remind you to place nice with others again ?

spaceman1

hey everybody, Im just wondering why so many ppl are talking about paedophiles on boards.ie this is a thread about single fathers....I have seen some of the same ppl on another thread about paedophiles, its kinda puzzling me, is there a paedophile ring here...not meaning to offend anyone and I hope I dont get banned, but I dont understand whats going on?

and if you dont hear from me again its probably cause Im banned......

maireadmarie

At the outset I must say, I am not a double poster, I am using the same computer as a poster on this thread.
Metrovelvet, something you said means I'm going to be thinking about it all day - because it struck some kind of chord - about not trusting your community or culture...I find I do trust my community (I live in a small village) because I know the structure of the community - there are a lot of new people here but they have to fit in, not the other way, which is a thing with this village...but I don't trust my culture any more - it is changing, very fast, and there are a lot of things that are ok now that were not as I was growing up (from which you may gauge I'm 'no chicken', as they say). I'm not actually thinking first here about sexual matters, surprise, surprise, but social attitudes and behaviour, e.g. 'manners' as they are known have changed a great deal, and what would be very rude in my young days is fine now...even though still hurtful.
Firstly, I think children sleeping over in a house with a a large number of men unknown to the children if not the houseowner, is a bad idea - for many reasons but I don't want to hog this thread...unless you want to ask all the men to be checked out by the police, which might take something from the homely atmosphere of the house; I would consider it, however, obligatory to such a set-up.
Secondly, I think young single mothers with children should be compelled to have any new live-in partners checked similarly, because in my experience, many single mothers will overlook or fail to see faults in prospective partners in order to have the security of a relationship, and I believe this is a case of two biological drives being in conflict; however, the protection of all our children should be paramount, and if this hurts feelings, so be it!
This, by the way, is not a new idea; I have a friend who had a child before she was married; when she married, and her husband wanted to adopt the little girl, they had to endure many visits from social workers before this was permitted, even though he had been the boyfriend of the young mother before she met her child's father, and had been 'there for her' from the moment the child was born. It's hard to see, therefore, how things should be different in more casual relationships where the new partner is not going to adopt the child.

The Corinthian

spaceman1 wrote:

hey everybody, Im just wondering why so many ppl are talking about paedophiles on boards.ie this is a thread about single fathers....I have seen some of the same ppl on another thread about paedophiles, its kinda puzzling me, is there a paedophile ring here...not meaning to offend anyone and I hope I dont get banned, but I dont understand whats going on?

No it's just topical atm and the same posters will tend to post on lots of things. Both I and Metrovelvet posted on a thread about Chavez too, for example - is there significance to that too?

spaceman1

Only significant Corinthian if you were talking about paedophileria, but if not then no...

metrovelvet

maireadmarie wrote:

Firstly, I think children sleeping over in a house with a a large number of men unknown to the children if not the houseowner, is a bad idea - for many reasons but I don't want to hog this thread...unless you want to ask all the men to be checked out by the police, which might take something from the homely atmosphere of the house; I would consider it, however, obligatory to such a set-up..

OK a number of points here.

First of all, depending on the age of the kids, it's the kids themselves you may have to worry about. Several people I know who were raped as children were done so by adolescent boys. Some within the family and some outside of it. So I dont know if it's even the dads who are to be worried about.

I find the idea of having the men checked out by the police in complete violation of human dignity and if you have to do this then don't set this house up at all.

CCTV - police checks - it sounds like a prison! What place is that for a child?

maireadmarie wrote:

Secondly, I think young single mothers with children should be compelled to have any new live-in partners checked similarly, because in my experience, many single mothers will overlook or fail to see faults in prospective partners in order to have the security of a relationship, and I believe this is a case of two biological drives being in conflict; however, the protection of all our children should be paramount, and if this hurts feelings, so be it!

That is surely one of the most patronising comments I have seen made toward women in a long long time. You want the police to scrutinise the romantic involvements of single mothers because their judgement cant be trusted? ha ha ha ha ha.

I have no doubt that this does happen, where a woman would be lonely enough to overlook potential dangers, but to make it legal policy that the GUARDS can investigate your sex/romantic life is insane. Sorry.

maireadmarie wrote:

This, by the way, is not a new idea; I have a friend who had a child before she was married; when she married, and her husband wanted to adopt the little girl, they had to endure many visits from social workers before this was permitted, even though he had been the boyfriend of the young mother before she met her child's father, and had been 'there for her' from the moment the child was born. It's hard to see, therefore, how things should be different in more casual relationships where the new partner is not going to adopt the child.

Social workers. More state interference in the family. Because in more casual relationships the man is not going to have any legal or financial status over the child. Adoption makes you the parent - forever.

The Corinthian

spaceman1 wrote:

Only significant Corinthian if you were talking about paedophileria, but if not then no...

I see you're missing the point. Paedophileia, like Chavez, Iraq or numerous other issues presently being argued over on Boards is presently topical. Additionally, many of the people who you've cited as having posted in both threads are also present on numerous other threads. So drawing the conclusions you've put forward is really going into silly Paedofinder General territory.

Maybe you should go catch a show in the Abbey?

maireadmarie

Well, Metrovelvet, I did specify vetting should take place if a single mother was about to take in a new live-in partner, I really think the guards are busy enough without chasing around after all romantic links; it would be quite an interference if police were to interest themselves in romantic partners who were not going to be live-in...
Sorry if I sound patronising, but I shall always continue to state what I think is right, no matter how it sounds. I don't care how it sounds, to be frank. that's my opinion. Workers in care homes have to be vetted, why not new live-in partners? You seem also to be saying that all single mothers can be trusted to make the right judgement about proposed partners, which of course is ridiculous, if one follows certain court cases, it is immediately obvious how crazy an assumption that is. I know a family where all the mother's children from an earlier partner were abused by her second partner; only when public gossip caused the authorities to be interested was he forced to leave the home; within a month he had moved in with a new partner and her young child.
I do feel that in the main social workers are not ideal, but what's the alternative?
Protect children first, and then let's worry about sounding patronising. Or should that be 'matronising'?

metrovelvet

There is a point where these things become civil rights issues. And what you are talking about violates individual civil liberties.

Workers in care homes are professionals and in a setting in which people pay and entrust them to look after the elderly or disabled.

I would agree with you that the rate of abuse among step fathers is higher than among other family members but if you start criminalising them, where does it end? Visiting uncles, cousins?

And in your example "public gossip"forced this man to leave the home? And then he moved on to someone else. So much for the authorities doing anything about it or being able to prevent it from happening again.

Perhaps if we developed ways to teach children to cultivate their instincts around sussing out danger, about who to trust and who not to, about what to do when your scared then we give them the power.

maireadmarie

What happened was, local gossip lead to the gardai finally taking an interest and the social services went in, but they weren't so worried about where he went afterwards. I agree with you about social services, in most, but not all, cases, I'm afraid.
I'm as keen as the next person on civil rights, which, let's face it usually mean, adult civil rights, but not if they leave children vulnerable. What would your solution be?

metrovelvet

My solution is to accept that evil exists, danger exists, and it's never going to go away completely. That you think the police and the authorties and some batman can come and save us all from it is just delusional. That you think that social workers and guards are not themselves capable of evil is also delusional and just not practical.

That you and others can accept "local gossip" as grounds for evicting someone out of their home is scary in itself and something out of a Shirley Jackson story even though it turned out he was guilty. Can you imagine the implications for this in some small town backwards inbred country town?

Relying on them makes children more vulnerable imo and when you scrutinise their parents like they are criminals, doesn't it teach them that their parents arent to be trusted? The very people they SHOULD trust? Perhaps the only people they should trust?

My solution is awareness and education for both parents and children. Stop with the Barney and go back to Grimms, stronger laws for convicted sex offenders and neighborhood support and watch. I certainly dont have the solution but treating the parents with the assumption of guilt and laying more power into the incompetant hands of the authorities is not the answer.

maireadmarie

No, because of the talk, the guards decided to investigate, and then decided there were grounds for concern. I can't go into more details for obvious reasons. There was no witchhunt.
Sadly, I don't know what kind of education would be either appropriate or possible - you can warn children, and keep a sharp eye yourself, but people who want to abuse children are cleverer than most of us. If you're protective people say, "oh, you've got to let them get independent". Well, the kids who are taken are often being allowed this independence. The young women who feel they have the right to go where they like without fear at night, and then do so, frequently live to regret this. Sometimes they don't. But that's another story. For another time...
I don't think you have a solution, any more than any of us, Metrovelvet.

K-9

maireadmarie wrote:

No, because of the talk, the guards decided to investigate, and then decided there were grounds for concern. I can't go into more details for obvious reasons. There was no witchhunt.
Sadly, I don't know what kind of education would be either appropriate or possible - you can warn children, and keep a sharp eye yourself, but people who want to abuse children are cleverer than most of us. If you're protective people say, "oh, you've got to let them get independent". Well, the kids who are taken are often being allowed this independence. The young women who feel they have the right to go where they like without fear at night, and then do so, frequently live to regret this. Sometimes they don't. But that's another story. For another time...
I don't think you have a solution, any more than any of us, Metrovelvet.

My God. Could you imagine chatting up some girl or indeed some mother being chatted up by a fella. Asking them "Are you ok with the social workers and guards checking you out? Great, I'll set up for tomorrow!"

There really is no solution to abuse. It's unfortunately going to happen. It does look from this thread that unfortunately in the OP's case that we would have to accept CCTV and maybe involvement of social services. It's an interesting scenario but I wonder where is the line you draw between protection of civil rights and child safety.

Having social workers around every month to check on the kids for signs of physical isn't very good for the childs welfare either, and what about the neighbours then? "Ah there's something funny going on in that house, sure look the social workers or there every 5 minutes. I bet you something is going on, why else would they be there?"

metrovelvet

I would have more of an issue with a house that was under the scrutiny of CCTV and social services then I would with with the original idea behind this thread.

And if you think social workers are the solution you are sadly mistaken. I know personally of one child who is living with her grandmother and her convicted sex offender geandfather because her mother died and no guardianship papers were signed. Social services are aware of this. Psych evals have been done and the daughter is still living with the grandmother and the TWICE convicted sex offender.

spaceman1

Well, I think we are getting off topic....single father accommodation, As far as sex offenders and beuracracy, we could be here alll day. The system is completely flawed, and I think in the system, there is no political will to tackle the problems regarding child safety, relationships between child and parents. Kids these days grow up without even knowing thei parents, its all money orientated. Between kreshes, schools and this new capitalist culture we live in now. Time seems to squeeze good old fashioned social gatherings in the house.

As far as the whole sex offenders thing, well, that stuff has been going on unchecked since the foudation of the state, possibly earlier......

What we need is someone in the goverment to start acting in the best interest of our quality of life, unfortunately, that doesnt look likely.

Nevyn

The things is that fathers should be granted joint custondy where possible and be afford rent allonace if needed to work to wards providing a home that they can have thier children in and spend time with them as a parent rather then the trips to macdondals and having to worry about where to take the children to spend time with them and to be able to have thier children have thier own rooms in thier father's home.