This situation is horrible and disturbing on so many levels.
I do however find it unsettling how many people want the girl baby removed from the care of her father. Yes, he is a convicted child sex offender but the law in this country doesn't automatically remove biological children from the care of the parents if one or both have previously been convicted of child sexual assault.
Should the law be changed so that convicted abusers can't care for their own children? Maybe? I don't know.
But until it is I feel uncomfortable about the law being applied differently to different people just because some are getting media attention.
I am sure there are plenty of convicted abusers out there with a heap of children in their care who aren't being targeted. I then compare this to cases I have read about on here where ACTUAL abuse is being witnessed and reported to CPS with minimal response, and the child hasn't been removed from the parents care. Yet CPS are trying to visit this household where to date, there is no reported evidence of any misdeeds with regard to the child in their care.
I guess my point is that calling for the removal of 'this' baby girl and the attention of CPS just seems in reaction to media attention rather than an equitable application of the laws and standards of our country.
Ummm, feeling rather inarticulate at the moment.... Hope this makes sense!
Can't quote for some reason but @bedlover I think that when you consider that the bio parents have opted to do an under the table deal to have a child with a surrogate and the fact that the bio father has prior convictions for child sex offences then it is entirely appropriate that the family be investigated to ensure the safety of the little girl.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using The Bub Hub mobile app
I am not saying it doesn't deserve investigation. Just that there are a lot of these "under the table" surrogacy arrangements currently taking place, as previously mentioned in this thread (and now in limbo due to changes in Thai law). There are also lots of people with convictions of child sexual abuse. Are checks being done on all these people to ensure the two groups don't intersect and then relevant action being taken?
I just feel there should be one set of rules for everyone.
Apple iPhart6 (10-08-2014)
In my opinion, anyone who sexually offends against children should not be allowed access to children ever again. Whether it be their own, or any other child. This includes teaching, surrogacy, anything involving children. I don't care if they offended 30 years ago, their right to children in any form should be taken from them.
Yeah, look I'd love to have complete confidence that he's changed and I really hope that he has, but as he was a serial offender, wasn't particularly interested in the counselling programs and wasn't remorseful when he was sentenced, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be doubtful about his level of rehabilitation.
I'm also mindful of the fact that Child Protection may know more about the couple than has been released to the media
eg. they may have had other reasons (in addition to the media attention) to support a quick commencement of an investigation into the couple.
To answer your question I believed those convicted of child sex offences (not counting the older teenage & younger teenager consensual scenarios) should not have custody of any kids, including their own.
I agree. I don't care if they biologically made the child they should lose their rights to be parents if they're convicted of committing sexual offenses against minors.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!