Welcome to the DAD.Info forum: Important Information – open to read:
Our forum aims to provide support and guidance where it can, however we may not always have the answer. The forum is not moderated 24 hours a day, so If you – or someone you know – are being harmed or in immediate danger of being harmed, call the police on 999.
Alternatively, if you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123.
If you are worried about you or someone you know is at risk of harm, please click here: How we can help
Hi got the section 2 report ahead of court and if I'm honest it's a joke focus is solely that I have a criminal record for violence in 1990 and not in any way was it towards a child purely drunken brawling so how the [censored] is this relevant? Plus my ex didn't undertake a safe guarding interview as they put it"through no fault of her own"!!! Ridiculous it's been 3 months even the pope gets 20 minutes spare in that time surely this is wrong?
Thanks Steve
Okay so is this a Schedule 2 Safeguarding letter, or a Section 7 Report?
Don't focus on the content - what are the recommendations at the back of the document?
A criminal record from almost 30 years is likely to be considered historic by the courts.
Thanks it's a schedule 2 safeguarding letter at the end it just says no safeguarding issues were found by the social services and my daughter would benefit from contact with me and that the social worker I have been dealing with should make recommendations on interim contact and do the S7 report? Thanks Steve
All sounds very positive to me then. They're clearly not bothered about your previous conviction and have recommended contact start.
Do you disagree with it at all?
Hi and thanks I don't disagree as such just facts are wrong such as charges a couple of which I was acquitted they mention them then say the police took no further action which is rubbish I was acquitted by the judge not found not guilty and an aquital is a totally different thing as far as I am aware it shouldn't be on my record as it is a declaration of innocence by the judge not guilty means they couldn't prove your guilt not that you were innocent. I'm probably just nit picking but it does annoy me. Thanks Steve
Welcome to the DAD.info forum.
We don’t like to set ‘rules’, but to make sure that you and the other dads are kept safe, we have some requests. When engaging with the forum, please be aware of the following:
- The forum is not moderated 24 hours per day.
- Many of the moderators do so on a voluntary basis. Whilst they may be able to provide some guidance, advice or support, they may not be able to deal with specifics.
- We are not an emergency crisis service so if you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call emergency services.
- If you are concerned about the safety of a child, please click here to find the support you can get for them (link to new page)
- If you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123. They are open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
We hope you find this forum a supportive environment and thank you for joining us.