The Family Court made a child protection order later in 2016 and introduced safeguarding to prevent unsuitable internet use,
Mr Worsley said. "By now the whole family was receiving attention. The defendant seemed to be complying with the plan. Social services remained in contact with the family until February 2017 when conditions were deemed to be satisfactory.
"But the prosecution says his co-operation with social services was on the surface only. There was no real change in his desire to provide supervision and protection for her and it seems as soon as social services had withdrawn there was a complete breakdown in supervision.
"These were nine and ten year olds indulging in sexual activity and the defendant completely failing to supervise," Mr Worsley said
Not just the defendant, though. Are social services unaware that some of their 'clients' lie? Are they naive?
Susan Cavender, representing the dad, said: "He was unaware of the vast majority of the incidents involving his daughter until he was told about them by third parties when he was told he did his best, no matter how inadequate that was, to remedy the situation.
"He has been quick to accept that his best was not good enough. His sins are of omission rather than commission and there is no suggestion he was ever physically abusive to his children.
"He admits, however, that his failure to supervise amounts to neglect. His chief offence is lack of intervention.
"He realises he has been a failure as far as his children are concerned and he is struggling to come to terms with that. He was not the parent he wished to be."
And nor was the State the 'assistant' in that endeavour that it wished to be...
Of course, to really fail, we need to turn to the justice system. Because, unbelievable as it may seem, this attracts no time behind bars for him:
Sentencing the defendant to two years jail suspended for two years, ordered to attend 32 rehabilitation activity days, undergo six months of drug rehabilitation, and fined £120, Recorder Thomas Brown said "You were advised as far back as 2012 by the police about caring appropriately for your daughter when you left her with a suspected child sex offender. You appreciated that that person had a sexual interest in children.
"I am satisfied that by your behaviour you have contributed to the sexualisation of her behaviour with others.
"This was conduct causing serious psychological, developmental and emotional harm to her."
And what did the social services do to prevent this? And why aren't they sharing the dock with him?
2 comments:
What a bastard. Why don't we have flogging - he deserves it.
He does indeed. But we don't have it because we're civilised.
Apparently.
Post a Comment