A proposed law to restrict paedophiles’ parental rights in England and Wales is too weak because it does not protect children of theirs born after their conviction, parliament will hear this week.
Under the victims and courts bill, a parent convicted of serious sexual offences against any child and who is sentenced to four or more years in prison will lose parental responsibility but they could come out of jail and have other children who would not be protected.
An amendment to end this anomaly has been tabled by the crossbench peer and former family court judge James Meston, and will be debated in the House of Lords on Tuesday.
The move to restrict parental responsibility came after the BBC reported the case of a mother, Bethan (not her real name), who spent £30,000 in legal fees to stop her paedophile ex-husband having contact with their daughter.
Bethan said: “This amendment will prevent the formation of a deeply unfair two-tier system, where children born before the paedophile parent’s conviction are safe from abuse, but younger siblings, born even a day after conviction, are still under the control of, and highly likely to be abused by, the paedophile.
“If a paedophile retains parental rights over even one child in a family, then they have control over that entire family unit, and can use that control to terrorise their ex-partner and children. This amendment closes a large loophole and prioritises the safety of all children.”
In a debate in parliament last year, the minister for victims, Alex Davies-Jones, said the government “cannot bind future children or children yet to be born” but “should they be at risk, the normal route to strip parental responsibility in the family courts will still exist”.
Lord Meston said a blanket ban risked being found to interfere with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect for family life. But he said his amendment overcame this obstacle because it “allowed the door to remain – at least theoretically – open to an application later on, arguably, to the family court to be allowed in some circumstances to exercise parental responsibility”.
He proposed the amendment after being contacted by Bethan’s father, who suggested to him how future children could be protected without a blanket ban.
Meston’s amendment states: “A person is not eligible to acquire parental responsibility automatically under section 2 of the Children Act 1989 if, at the time of the child’s birth, they have been convicted of a serious sexual offence committed against a child and sentenced to a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more, or have been convicted of rape and the child was conceived as a result of that rape.”
Bethan’s father said: “On forums such as Mumsnet, some women describe choosing to terminate a healthy pregnancy simply to escape a partner’s coercive control without being dragged through the family courts. The victims and courts bill will finally end this situation for the existing children of convicted child sex offenders. But without this amendment, the very same ordeal will continue for any child born even a single day after conviction.”
The government said it did not comment on amendments before they had been debated in parliament.
