this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2558 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Paedophiles convicted of serious sexual offences could lose parental rights over their children under a new law.

The proposed law change comes after the BBC reported the case of a mother who spent £30,000 in legal fees to stop her paedophile ex-husband getting access to their daughter.

After hearing the story, Labour MP Harriet Harman tabled an amendment to upcoming legislation.

It covers the most serious sexual offence - rape of a child under 13. 

Speaking to BBC News, Ms Harman said paedophiles who were guilty of that crime in the future would be "automatically deprived" of their parental rights.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tolstoshev@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The problem with schemes like this is that they imagine a world where the now orphaned kid gets adopted into a loving Hallmark movie home. The reality is that they will end up in foster care where the abuse and neglect will continue, just at the hands of strangers. Or mom will shack up with the next abuser and the dad will have no ability to intervene. Better to leave them with their biological parent who, while a complete scumbag, at least has genetic similarity to hopefully check their worst excesses.

TL;DR - fix the social safety net instead of dumb feel good laws like this one.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If the biological parent is a confirmed child abuser, getting them to foster care is a lottery where the two potential results are ending up with another child abuser or with literally anyone better than that.

But that isn't even the only option. The very case referenced by the article is that of a mother trying to block her pederast ex-husband from being able to meet their abused child.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

My sister used to foster. The reality is usually closer to what the person you responded to said.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

When it's only one parent as in the case that allegedly inspired this law, that becomes less of an issue and i'd see it entirely as a positive. When it's both parents... as fucked as this sounds, it'd probably have to depend on the details whether taking the child to a foster home would help, but usually probably not. They're already traumatized at that point and taking them away from both parents would likely just traumatize them further.

Note: am not a psychologist this is mostly conjecture from what ive picked up