This judge should have his head examined.

[Angharrad]

Judge: Two young girls must spend weekends with sex offender father

BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, March 15th 2010, 11:23 AM

A family court is allowing two young girls to spend weekends with a sex offender.

Why? Because that sex offender is their father.

The unidentified man has been fighting his wife in court over visitation rights for nearly two years, after she left him following his child pornography conviction in 2007.

The man reportedly was convicted of filming and downloading images of child pornography on his computer, as well as creating links to child porn Web sites, according to The Australian.

The judge in Hobart, Australia, granted the father permission to have his children over on alternate weekends, but put in place a series of strict rules that must be applied.

Among them, the daughters must sleep together in a shared room, with the door locked at night.

An "adult friend" must also stay in the home when the girls - ages 10 and 8 - spend the night.

The judge argued the strict guidelines were important at night, but not during the day.

"When awake, dressed and together, it would be unlikely the father would act inappropriately toward them," a family court counselor told The Australian.

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

The decision has, not surprisingly, sparked outrage.

"He's on the register because a judge, another judge, in a criminal court understood that that's where he should be," child protection advocate Hetty Johnston told ABC in Australia.

"Decisions in the Family Court are supposed to be about the best interests of the child."

NY Daily News

This is so messed up, a definite .

[Reliant121]

very difficult situation. I can sorta see whwere the judge is coming from, but i think the risk is just too high.

[Nickswitz]

I can see the decision the judge made, I can understand it, I think that if that strict of guidelines need to be in place, then they shouldn't be with the father.

[Mikey]

A guy who films child pornography doesn't have the same mores as a healthy person. Why then should we think that he wouldn't "act inappropriately" during the day, or toward both girls at once?

indeed.

[Sionnach Glic]

I have to say, I'm finding it difficult to come down on one side or the other here.
For one, they are his kids and he may very well treat them just the same as any other father would, regardless of his other "interests".
At the same time, he did have child pornography, thus indicating that there may well be a greater risk of him doing something innapropriate to them.

[Mark]

I'm on the fence too. It's reprehensible what the man is accused of (especially as I have two daughters myself), but if the man has served his time....................

[Capt. Jethro]

Just because he made a 'donation' in order to conceive the kids doesn't automatically make him a father.

[Mark]

Agreed, but we don't know what kind of father he was in spite of his crimes.

[shran]

Besides of that, I suppose that even though he has these "interests", there should be somewhere a set of morals around in his brain. Although I acknowledge the risk of the mental and physical welfare of the children, I think a father should have visiting rights for his children, even when applied to this situation. Not being able to see your children any more can completely destroy a man, as many can attest to. Strict surveillance should be applied, though.
Also, filming and downloading child pornography does not equal an urge to practice incest.

please correct me if I'm wrong about this, though.

[Captain Seafort]

Besides of that, I suppose that even though he has these "interests", there should be somewhere a set of morals around in his brain.

Says who? The two are pretty contradictory. Add to that the fact that most case of child abuse (of all types, not just sexual) are comitted by either familly members or close friends and you've got a strong case to keep him away from kids, his own children or not.

[Mikey]

Besides of that, I suppose that even though he has these "interests", there should be somewhere a set of morals around in his brain. Although I acknowledge the risk of the mental and physical welfare of the children, I think a father should have visiting rights for his children, even when applied to this situation. Not being able to see your children any more can completely destroy a man, as many can attest to. Strict surveillance should be applied, though.
Also, filming and downloading child pornography does not equal an urge to practice incest.

please correct me if I'm wrong about this, though.

The fact of the ruling mandating sleeping arrangements implies overnight visitation. Even if the Australian court system deems it necessary or for the good that this guy see his children, why not supervised daily visits rather than unsupervised overnight visits?

[Tyyr]

I could see supervised day time visits but overnight?

This guy didn't just have kiddie porn, he actively made it and made it accessible to other people.

[Nickswitz]

I could see supervised day time visits but overnight?

This guy didn't just have kiddie porn, he actively made it and made it accessible to other people.

Yeah, that's one thing that makes me think this is a bad idea.

[Angharrad]

Judge: Two young girls must spend weekends with sex offender father

Weekends - overnight

The judge in Hobart, Australia, granted the father permission to have his children over on alternate weekends, but put in place a series of strict rules that must be applied.

Among them, the daughters must sleep together in a shared room, with the door locked at night.

An "adult friend" must also stay in the home when the girls - ages 10 and 8 - spend the night.

The judge argued the strict guidelines were important at night, but not during the day.

An "adult friend", of who, of the father? What kind of people do you think he hangs out with? And how secure is the lock on an inside door?

[sunnyside]

Hmmmm

Lets be honest, if you couldn't see your daughters for having looked at porn of someone of the same age, social services would have to keep 99.9%* of fathers away from their daughters once they reach 18 (younger in some states and countries).

*presumes ~.1% of fathers are blind or secretly gay

I don't think having a kink translates into wanting to perpetrate it on ones daughters. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions for this guy, but rather that restrictions should be somewhat independent of what he likes to see and more dependent on if they feel there is any reason to think he's a geniuine threat to his own daughters, which he may very well not be.