Is this acceptable behaviour with my child?

ailuro2

Sit your son down and ask him outright whether he would prefer to visit his mother with her partner there.Tell him there are options to visit without the partner present. If he says no he doesn't want to see him, then ask him to tell you why. Your instinct is telling you that alarm bells are being rung here but you've not got to the whole answer just yet.

You really need to find out why he is scared of her partner.

Who knows, maybe he is nasty to your ex too but he doesn't want to mention it?

I'd not be letting him go off for 3 weeks till I had the answers I was looking for.

If he hadn't said he was scared then I would put it down to stupid horseplay. When DD was younger we used to say 'Bob the builder's here' or 'builder's bum' whenever any one of us bent over and a bum crack appeared, it was a bit of fun but also a light hearted way to let her know her backside was showing so she would know. The difference is we're both her parents. If someone else was pointing out they could see her bum I'd not be comfortable with that. However, your son has said he is scared, and that puts you into a whole different place.

Don't be scared of offending people by finding out what's going on. The suggestion about quietly asking to see if he's on any registers is a good one. no one else needs know you've asked, but it will put your mind at rest a bit more.

Good Luck.

ritchie

Thanks again to all your replies and advice.

Just to clarify i have spoken to the NSPCC. They advised although the bf behaviour may just be of "fun" behaviour and may have no sexual intentions, it was still inappropriate in anyway. They advised to contact social services and/or my solicitor.

My son likes visiting his mother, and enjoys time with her. However, i have notced she is good at buying him material things, but is always good at making him feel guilty too (even minor stuff).

I have told the family member off for getting involved, when i asked them clearly not to quiz him. Suppose next time i learn not to tell them anything or even ask them for any support in such matters.

thorsoak

OP - the mother of your son will not be the first woman who has been "selected" by a new partner because she has a child that is attractive to the partner

She would appear to be oblivious to the concerns of your son - you must take that responsiblity yourself and report the incident - however trivial your son now makes it out to be - he wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place if he felt comfortable with what was going on - but you've made him aware of how serious it could be - and as an intelligent child of 9 he probably realises that this could make his mum very unhappy But that's tough !!!!!! on her!

These "harmless" incidents could well be the precurser to serious abuse. Deal with it now - if you know the partner's name, you might even be able to enquire of the police if there is any record of !!!!!philia with this chap - wasn't there a change in law which would allow parents to check upon potential partners' safety with children??

clearingout

I don't know if this will help or not, but I'll throw it in for good measure.

My ex-husband left me for a woman he'd been having an affair with for some time. they moved straight in together and our children (then 2 and 4) met her on day 8 of the separation. They didn't like her. I was very, very careful not to be rude about her in front of them (I may have slipped now and again but on the whole, am proud of my behaviour - I admit to some moments though!) and always encouraged them to be 'good' when at daddy's house, and do as she says.

It took some time but it became clear that she was both emotionally and physicaly abusive towards them. She smacked them regularly (my ex says not in front of him - I have no idea if he's telling the truth or not, I hope so), took their toys from them when they brought anything over from my house (once threatened to cut the legs off a favourite toy and put it in the bin, she then wrapped it in a plastic bag and hid it so he couldn't have it), threw away their clothes, told them that they'd never see mummy again and called me a whole manner of choice names ('mummy, what's a dirty s!ag?' 'why do you need to know?', 'because that's what S called you...').

I felt powerless to do anything. I emailed the ex everytime one of the boys told me what had happened. He ignored it. Like the OP, there was a court order in place defining contact and my ex is of the ilk that he will fight for no good reason (he saw the kids when he wanted, on his terms, but he still took me to court for them!!) Finally, some 14 months later, something happened (no idea what) and he got rid of her. He is guilty as hell. He knows full well 'stuff' was going on under his nose. He knows she didn't want him to see his children - jealous of them, perhaps? He says he felt his parenting was undermined by her (he's a good dad, in his own way, and wouldn't have tolerated that behaviour under 'normal' circumstances - but separation and divorce does dreadful things to the mind (I was pregnant when he left me - neither of them seemed to be able to get their heads round that) and makes people do things they wouldn't do normally). He woke up, thank goodness, and I hope that the lesson is learnt, for both of us, for future relationships.... the children are fine and I am hopeful there will be no lasting damage. It could very, very much have been worse.

My ex swears blind that he asked our eldest child on EACH and EVERY occassion that I pointed out, via email, what was going on, if he was being hurt by the girlfriend. Our son told him no. But our son was telling me something very different. He WANTED to see his daddy - we had the occassional blip at handover but most of the time, he went freely without an argument. But he was often stressed and upset before going and on arriving home. It can be very, very hard to get out of children what is going on - indeed, they may not really know themselves what is going on, only that they're not very happy with things.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I KNEW 100% what was going on. I pieced it together, bit by bit, without putting words in their mouths and by biding my time. I am pretty sure that the OP knows that this isn't right, either, despite evidence his son might now give to the contrary (chances are he'll want to see mum, for example, even if he doesn't want to see the boyfriend, if he thinks he won't see mum without the boyfriend, perhaps he'll put up with it and say that he's fine?). but it is very, very difficult to act decisively in these situations because the potential for fall out (whether you're right or wrong) is enormous and can ruin families, relationships, lives....its a lose-lose situation in so many ways.

Seriously OP, I do hope you manage to get this sorted. I think your first port of call is Social Services and/or the school and take it from there. The worst that can happen is you get it wrong. At best? You save your son potentially years of abuse, and the associated destructive and difficult behaviour that goes with that. You will feel a lot better once you get a hold of the situation, I'm sure. I don't envy you. Good luck with it.

verysillyguy06

I know i will be flamed.......

First of all , not all nine year olds are telling the truth and there may be a degree of being fed up with having to go to your ex and see a new bf around?


I am playing devil's advocat as a child version should never be totally dismissed but also be taken with a very slight pinch of salt in those circumstances....the sad thing is that you both are unable to sit down and talk sensible about this. She will be very defensive of her new bf whilst you are having to protect your son but you both should really be big enough to focus on the issues. Why can she not give you more re-assurances that she will watch her bf?

I also agree with the posters who are wondering why are you involving other members of the family? Any interview would be by now become distorted. The main issue is really at your son's age if he does not want to go, his opinion will be taken in account. Go back to the court who will get CAFCAS involved to undertake an assessment if you and him are sure this is the right course of action.

Your son would have to say he does not want to go and CAFCAS will look into the reasons. Not sure Social Services would get involved to be honest

daska

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

I know i will be flamed.......

First of all , not all nine year olds are telling the truth and there may be a degree of being fed up with having to go to your ex and see a new bf around?


I am playing devil's advocat as a child version should never be totally dismissed but also be taken with a very slight pinch of salt in those circumstances....the sad thing is that you both are unable to sit down and talk sensible about this. She will be very defensive of her new bf whilst you are having to protect your son but you both should really be big enough to focus on the issues. Why can she not give you more re-assurances that she will watch her bf?

I also agree with the posters who are wondering why are you involving other members of the family? Any interview would be by now become distorted. The main issue is really at your son's age if he does not want to go, his opinion will be taken in account. Go back to the court who will get CAFCAS involved to undertake an assessment if you and him are sure this is the right course of action.

Your son would have to say he does not want to go and CAFCAS will look into the reasons. Not sure Social Services would get involved to be honest

There is more than a little truth in what you say but no parent can afford to be complacent - just because children are capable of lying does not mean that they are necessarily lying.

To change the court order will require going back court and that comes under CAFCASS's remit. At age 9 the child is not generally considered mature enough to decide whether or what frequency/duration/location of contact is best for them - he would not have to say that he didn't want to visit his mother for CAFCASS to get involved. Social Services won't get involved if it's just a problem over contact frequency or duration, but they WILL get involved if there are suspicions of abuse or neglect, because they are legally obliged to.

I would suggest that the OP do what the NSPCC has advised: ring Social Services.

verysillyguy06

daska wrote: »

There is more than a little truth in what you say but no parent can afford to be complacent - just because children are capable of lying does not mean that they are necessarily lying.

To change the court order will require going back court and that comes under CAFCASS's remit. Social Services won't get involved if it's just a problem over contact frequency or duration, but they will get involved if there are suspicions of abuse or neglect, because they are legally obliged to.

I would suggest that the OP do what the NSPCC has advised: ring Social Services.

I do agree and it is certainly worth a ring but just stating what may happen. Howver, depending on what the op will and how state things....will the second story being told or the first?


however, it is better to phone than not to as they will give the right advice

verysillyguy06

Gillick competence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to:navigation, search
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (16 years or younger) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on a decision of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL). The case is binding in England, and has been approved in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similar provision is made in Scotland by The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. In Northern Ireland, although separate legislation applies, the then Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland stated that there was no reason to suppose that the House of Lords' decision would not be followed by the Northern Ireland Courts.
Contents

/SIZE][URL="javascript:toggleToc()"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0645ad]hide[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2

• 1 The Gillick decision
• 2 Subsequent developments
• 3 Australian law
• 4 Confusion regarding Gillick competency
• 5 Fraser Guidelines
• 6 References
• 7 Link

URL="http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/w/index.php?title=Gillick_competence&action=edit&section=1"][COLOR=#0645ad]edit[/COLOR][/URL The Gillick decision

The Gillick case involved a health departmental circular advising doctors on the contraception of minors (for this purpose, under sixteens). The circular stated that the prescription of contraception was a matter for the doctor's discretion, and that they could be prescribed to under sixteens without parental consent. This matter was litigated because an activist, Mrs. Victoria Gillick (n!e Gudgeon), ran an active campaign against the policy. Mrs Gillick, a mother of ten (five girls, five boys), sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent.
The issue before the House of Lords was only whether the minor involved could give consent. 'Consent' here was considered in the broad sense of consent to battery or assault: in the absence of patient consent to treatment a doctor, even if well-intentioned, might be sued/charged.
The House of Lords focussed on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights' or parental powers. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.
Lord Scarman and Lord Fraser proposed slightly different tests (Lord Bridge agreed with both). Lord Scarman's test is generally considered to be the test of 'Gillick competency'. He required that a child could consent if they fully understood the medical treatment that is proposed:
"As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed." Lord Scarman
URL="http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/w/index.php?title=Gillick_competence&action=edit&section=2"][COLOR=#0645ad]edit[/COLOR][/URL Subsequent developments

The decisions in Re R and Re W (especially Lord Donaldson) contradict the Gillick decision somewhat. From these, and subsequent cases, it is suggested that although the parental right to veto treatment ends, parental powers do not ‘terminate’ as suggested by Lord Scarman in Gillick. However, these are only obiter statements and were made by a lower courts; therefore, they are not legally binding. However, the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court remains available allowing a court order to force treatment against a child's (and parent’s) wishes.
A child who is deemed "Gillick competent" is able to prevent their parents viewing their medical records. As such, medical staff will not make a disclosure of medical records of a child who is deemed "Gillick competent" unless consent is manifest.
In most jurisdictions the parent of an emancipated minor does not have the ability to consent to therapy, regardless of the Gillick test. Typical positions of emancipation arise when the minor is married (R v D [1984] AC 778, 791) or in the military.
The nature of the standard remains uncertain. The courts have so far declined invitations to define rigidly "Gillick competence" and the individual doctor is free to make a decision, consulting peers if this may be helpful, as to whether that child is "Gillick competent".


This is taken case by case but not unusual for a 9 year old and would then be taken into account by CAFFCASS

daska

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

Gillick competence

This is taken case by case but not unusual for a 9 year old and would then be taken into account by CAFFCASS

If that was in response to my post then I'm not quite sure why? I was responding to your assertion that:

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

Your son would have to say he does not want to go

I simply pointed out that he wouldn't HAVE to say this in order for this to return to court, nor would it affect whether CAFCASS were involved.

That's not to say that his views would be ignored, of course they wouldn't, but at 9 he wouldn't automatically be considered mature enough to understand the implications of his decisions and wouldn't be expected to be disloyal to his mother. And if CAFCASS deems the contact to put the child at risk then, whether he wants to go or not, they will recommend that contact is stopped, supervised or limited.

DVardysShadow

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

I know i will be flamed.......

First of all , not all nine year olds are telling the truth and there may be a degree of being fed up with having to go to your ex and see a new bf around?

Oh, yes, we have seen that lad in question will do it. Which is why it is regrettable the other relative started probing and got an answer which diminished the severity of what happened. As I see it, he is telling people differently according to what he judges is going to get the outcome he wants, contact with his mother and no contact with the bf.

The trouble with inconsistent stories is that neither will be fully believed, although I believe that the lies are to diminish the situation.

Ritchie really needs to brief him to always tell the truth and not to tell 3rd parties anything