Mum's fury as new law 'fails to protect children from paedophile parents'
Mum's fury as new law 'fails to protect children from paedophile parents'
'I had to pay thousands for my daughter to get the same level of protection that was being given, for free, to every child in the UK but her'
Stock image of a child
A mum who spent her life savings to protect her child from her sex offender ex-husband has criticised the UK Government over a new law. The Victims and Courts Bill would automatically strip parental rights from some criminals — but critics say it has been heavily watered down.
Last year Harriet Harman — then a Labour MP, now a peer — tabled a legislative amendment which would have seen anyone who has raped a child "automatically deprived" of their parental rights.
But the wording of the newly-released draft bill is different — with an automatic restriction of parental rights that would only apply to offenders who have sexually abused their own child. They also must have been sentenced to four or more years in jail.
If you have parental responsibility for a child but do not live with them, it means the other parent must include you when making important decisions about their lives, like on issues of health, education and living arrangements.
Baroness Harman made the proposal after reading about the case of Bethan (not her real name), who had applied for a Cardiff Family Court order to strip her ex-husband of parental responsibility after he was jailed for paedophile offences. The convictions cannot be reported for legal reasons but did not involve their daughter.
Although Bethan successfully obtained the order, she had to spend £34,000 in legal fees and put her career on hold in the process. She was overjoyed last year when she thought the new legislation would prevent others experiencing the same nightmare — but she was appalled by the wording of the draft bill.
Article continues below
Bethan said: "The original law put forward by Harriet Harman rightly proposed that any parent convicted of raping any child should experience automatic and mandatory removal of their parental rights, ensuring that their children would be immediately safeguarded."
She added: "Rather than being protected, it puts the children of paedophiles at risk of serious harm, as the revised version deprives them of any legal safeguards until after at least one of them has suffered serious, preventable harm at the hands of the unsafe parent."
In Bethan's case, she had to pay for a transcript of her ex-husband's sentencing and then take it to a solicitor to understand the implications for her child. She learned the judge had made a lifelong sexual harm prevention order — but had included an exemption allowing him to apply through the family courts for access to the daughter.
Explaining why the exemption prompted her to go to the family court, Bethan said: "I had to pay thousands for [my daughter] to get the same level of protection that was being given, for free, to every child in the UK but her.
"Going to family court was incredibly challenging financially. I pulled my daughter out of childcare where she was settled, used every penny of my savings, gave up the lease on my home and moved in with family, and even then I could only afford half of the £34,000 legal costs. Had it not been for family members stepping in and paying the other half, my daughter could not have been protected and would probably have ended up being seriously sexually abused."
Bethan fears the new bill will leave parents in similar situations having to fend for themselves. The same concern has been voiced by Right to Equality, a non-profit led by the barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman.
"In 2024, the Conservative government prepared legislation [after Harriet Harman's proposal] to strip all child rapists of their parental responsibility," said Right to Equality in a statement.
"In this Bill, the Labour government have decided it should only apply to children who were directly abused by their parent or carer, whose case results in a conviction and where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for four years or more. In practice, few victims will meet these criteria.
"Right to Equality believes that all children of child sex offenders should be given protections so that they and their family have the right to go on holiday, to change their name, or to move house or school, without interference from a sexual predator."
Alex Davies-Jones, m inister for victims and violence against women and girls, said: 'I do recognise the concerns raised by victims and campaigners, and will continue working closely with them to ensure the law is as strong and protective as it needs to be.'
She added: "These changes will, for the first time, introduce an automatic suspension of parental responsibility for offenders who sexually abuse their own child and receive a prison sentence of four years or more — removing the need for victims to go through court to secure this."
You can read our full court report on Bethan's case here.
Article continues below
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Tax rises needed as £9bn for Scotland is not enough, economists warn
Further tax rises may be needed as more than £9 billion of new cash for Scotland from Rachel Reeves's spending review will do little to solve the nation's fiscal issues, economists have said. The chancellor increased budgets in areas such as health, defence and housing as she laid out spending plans for the next three years in Westminster on Wednesday. That is expected to result in an average of £50.9 billion being allocated annually to Scotland through the Barnett formula over the period, from 2026-29, which Labour described as the largest devolution settlement yet. Many of the big policy announcements had been widely trailed in recent days, including £250 million for HM Naval Base Clyde, the reinstatement of £750 million for a supercomputer at Edinburgh University and financial support for the Acorn carbon capture project in the northeast of Scotland.
