Girls ordered to visit sex offender dad
 
Caroline Overington  The Australian
March 15, 2010 12:00
 
THE Family Court has ordered two young girls to spend alternate weekends with their father, a registered child sex offender, provided he puts a door on their bedroom that they can lock.
Judge Robert Benjamin, in the court's Hobart branch, ruled that the girls "need some protection from (their father), particularly at night", but said the risk of sexual abuse was "diminished when they are awake and alert, and when the children are together".

He said the father must have an "adult friend" stay with him when the girls stay overnight and, until the youngest daughter is 14, the girls must "share the same room so they can have the mutual support of one another".

A Family Court counsellor said the girls, 10 and eight, "are at an age and maturity when awake, dressed and together it would be unlikely the father would act inappropriately toward them".

"However, at night, when they were asleep or partly asleep and not aware of each other's whereabouts, they would be less secure."

The case has outraged women's groups, who say it puts the girls at risk to satisfy the father's desire to see them. The oldest girl, who has just turned 10, sobbed to counsellors that she was afraid to stay overnight with her father.

The father was convicted in 2007 of three child pornography offences, including filming images of child pornography on his computer. He also created links and shortcuts to child porn sites.

In sentencing the man for the offences, a judge in Tasmania said he was "far from convinced" he posed no risk to children and put his name on the Sexual Offenders Register for five years.

His wife left him, and has since been fighting to restrict his access to their two daughters.

In a decision known as Robins and Ruddock, the Family Court found the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had "demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age".

The eldest girl told counsellors she "did not want to spend time alone with her father" and kept repeating: `Please don't tell dad."

I believe that when a judge makes a wrong-headed decision like this, that if something bad happens to the children as a result, that judge needs to spend prison time as an accessory to the crime.  I think if they were held responsible for the consequences of such decisions they might think a little bit longer and harder about these things. 

In California recently a teenage girl was killed by a sex offender who had received a lenient sentence from a judge DESPITE the expert testimony of a psychiatrist who recommended the maximum sentence and said the man posed a continuing danger to young girls.  Yet the judge chose to ignore this testimony and give him a light sentence and at least one girl is dead as a result. 

My personal belief is that once someone offends sexually, that's it.  No second chances.  The recidivism rate is too high, these people WILL re-offend, and we have lost too many children already.  There also needs to be a clear distinction made between violent offenders  and the type of offense which is simply two consensual teenagers, one 17 and one 19--a distinction which is not made now. 

I think we as citizens need to get on the bandwagon and make this happen.  We don't need to have violent sex offenders living among us, we don't need to be afraid to let our children go out the door. 

NM, it would be nice if the judge would step down, but don't hold your breath.  I think it would take a public outcry, people becoming outraged and channeling that outrage.  And it needs to happen--not just in Australia, not just in the U.S., but everywhere.  We need to protect kids.

Ramone, your friend has not yet offended toward an individual, so I see that as a slightly different scenario--but slightly. Yes, definitely, go visit him in prison.  But I entirely support him or anyone involved in child porn serving out the lengthiest sentence possible.   Child porn has nothing to do with "sexual needs," just as rape doesn't.  Rape is a crime of violence, while child porn or molestation is a mental illness, and a particularly heinous one because it targets the most vulnerable among us.  As far as not doing any wrong to anyone by watching child porn--think of the poor children who were abused to make those images available.  Some of them are kidnapped, some killed after the abuse.  I personally know of two young women who were abused in this way, and their lives are shattered, perhaps beyond repair.  If no one watched this type of filth, there would be no victims.  

As far as parents being able to see their children after such offenses--I have issues with that, whether it be mother or father.  I think certain offenses carry with them the likelihood that you forfeit the privilege of seeing your children.  I've known too many children caught in a foster care system where their lives are in limbo for years, where the peace in their lives is disrupted by visits to dysfunctional parents.  I've seen a young boy who would resort to eating out of garbage cans for weeks after a visit home, an infant who would return to foster parents with terrible rashes and cry uncontrollably for days.  I've been with a wheelchair-bound adolescent who would cry and plead not to have to return to a home where parents were doing and selling drugs.  We need laws which focus on the child's welfare, not the parents.  I'm not saying to disenfranchise parents willy-nilly, but certain things are just beyond the pale, and letting child molesters walk free is one of them.  

Lav:  The man was convicted of porn ... not child molestation .... is that right?  Then maybe that's why the judge is not alarmed.  Maybe if the Australian man were convicted of child molestation then he would be denied domestic visitation.

The man was convicted of CHILD porn.  "The father was convicted in 2007 of three child pornography offences, including filming images of child pornography on his computer. He also created links and shortcuts to child porn sites."

I would never allow my children to meet with a father who is involved in child porn or any form of porn for that matter. He is demon possessed and before he meets my children he must be set free, which only Jesus can do.
I would do anything to protect children from such parents. And I do that a lot in my mission. It's hard, very hard to separate children from their parents, but when parents are mentally sick, they are involved in porn,pedophilia, drugs, alcohol, or any cults that would be a threat for the kids, I would protect them with my life.
We have three kids in our Children's Home whose father was an alcoholic and the mother involved in prostitution.
 And we had to fight for them and not let them go with their parents. I have spent one year in the court to take those kids under our care so parents have no rights to have them unless I would permit that in very safe circumstances.Their two older kids became just like their parents, but the three of them who are living in our House, are the best kids you can find.
SAVE THE CHILDREN FROM ANY FORM OF ABUSE, PLEASE!!!!!!! 

Yes I say save the children from abuse too.  But they are not your children dear sis.  The father and mother have a right and an obligation to see their children.... no matter how bad they've been.  I think even Charles Manson should be able to see his children (if he had any).  If the mom was a prostitute she should still be able to her children.  To harm them no, but to see them yes.

Dear sister Bride, they say almost half the people in the church have seen porn.  Should we divide the families of the church because we deem some too sinful?  Are we better than them?  Are they worse than us?  Are we more spiritual?  Better?  A cut above those demonic heathen folks that can't control their sex drive?  We look down our noses at sex offenders while in our own congregations we have sins going on like porn, fornication, and adultery.... to name just a few.

How would you feel if you couldn't see your children because of some mistake you made?  Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.