Did family/ex have duty to tell me he was a child molester?

[perplexed5]

I lived next door to a divorced man who had a 5 year old child which was the same age as my child. He often approached me for the kids to play together. I said ok if I am around with them. I wasn't in the habit of leaving my children with others. I was a stay at home mom and wasn't comfortable with my child being with casual acquaintances. There were a few occasions our children played together in his backyard while I kept an eye on them. During these times, I had the liberty of meeting his ex wife whom I was introduced to when she would pick her child up after work. I was also introduced to his mother and brother who lived immediately next door to him and had some brief conversation from time to time with each of them. Unbeknownst to be, I learn after my child is sexually assaulted, this neighbor man was a repeat offender. He had molested his own daughter, the daughter of another relative and two other neighbor children and had been convicted. The wife, brother and mother knew this all the while my child was playing with his child and had contact with me. But I didn't learn that until the court proceedings for my child's case. My question: Since the brother, mother and ex wife knew he was a child molester, didn't at least one of them have the duty to tell me? I would never had any contact with this man or let my child play with his child had I known. I would never had bothered him, but shouldn't one of them at least told me? Did they really believe this man would never touch another child? Or were they enabling him? I believe they each had a duty to tell me. We all have a duty to prevent children from harm. Children can't protect themselves. The man got 20 years in prison for my child's assault. I learned he didn't serve any time for the other assaults since the victims wouldn't testify. More like their parent didn't want them to. Perpetrator had money for lawyers, bail and court fees.

 

[disagreeable]

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anything they would have said would have been unsubstantiated and they could have been sued for defamation by him.

 

[ElleMD]

No, it is your responsibility to protect your child, not theirs. If you were concerned, check the websites out there that track sex offenders and arrests. Don't let your child go to homes where you don't know the families very well and make sure you supervise any play dates personally.

Just because he attacked children in his family, doesn't automatically mean he would take liberties with another child, if they even knew for certain that was the case.

 

[Proserpina]

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anything they would have said would have been unsubstantiated and they could have been sued for defamation by him.

A conviction generally puts paid to any defamation case.

Unbeknownst to be, I learn after my child is sexually assaulted, this neighbor man was a repeat offender. He had molested his own daughter, the daughter of another relative and two other neighbor children and had been convicted.

Just because he served no time doesn't mean there wasn't a conviction.

Then again, unfortunately some will use "convicted" and "charged" interchangeably. Did Mom ever check to see if any sex offenders were local to her?

 

[Proserpina]

No, it is your responsibility to protect your child, not theirs. If you were concerned, check the websites out there that track sex offenders and arrests. Don't let your child go to homes where you don't know the families very well and make sure you supervise any play dates personally.

Just because he attacked children in his family, doesn't automatically mean he would take liberties with another child, if they even knew for certain that was the case.

Given that the recidivism rate hovers around 40% (and that's a conservative number given how many child sex crimes aren't actually reported) the odds aren't exactly in his favor are they?

 

[cbg]

The fact remains, however, that there is not a duty under the law for his family members to provide any warnings.

 

[CdwJava]

Given that the recidivism rate hovers around 40% (and that's a conservative number given how many child sex crimes aren't actually reported) the odds aren't exactly in his favor are they?

Uh ... not entirely true ... and it depends on what category of offender you refer to. On average, non-sex offenders tend to have higher rates of recidivism and children are more likely to be victimized by family members or close family friends than a stranger - as it seems was the case with this particular neighbor. Offenders categorized as "high risk" may have a recidivism rate (i.e. re-arrest, not necessarily for a new sex offense) hovering between 15% and 40% (depending on time after release), but, "low risk" offenders have an arrest rate hovering near zero.

We frequently get inquiries about local registered offenders, and I encourage parents to be vigilant concerning people they KNOW, as they are statistically more likely to victimize a child than the one they are wary of. But, it's a fine line - paranoia can keep parents too protective.

I am surprised that this guy would never have served any jail time. Either the facts are not as they appeared to be, or, he pled to very minor offenses to avoid trial (which is often the case to avoid additional trauma on particularly young children). If he did this and is convicted, I would hope that he is incarcerated forever.

 

[ElleMD]

Given that the recidivism rate hovers around 40% (and that's a conservative number given how many child sex crimes aren't actually reported) the odds aren't exactly in his favor are they?

In his favor or not, a prior conviction doesn't mean he is guaranteed to molest the next kid he comes in contact with. The responsibility is still with the parents, not strangers, neighbors, or exes of acquaintances. Each parent has a different threshold for what they consider a risk.

 

[Proserpina]

These might be worth a read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1161

Worldwide there are some marked differences though. Offenders in the middle east have a much higher incidence of reoffending - but that's using the western definition and the data are flawed at best.

And then there's this: http://innocentjustice.org/2010/25-recidivism-rate-–-really/

It's also very difficult to even look at percentages if only for one reason; most don't get caught a second time.

 

[Proserpina]

In his favor or not, a prior conviction doesn't mean he is guaranteed to molest the next kid he comes in contact with. The responsibility is still with the parents, not strangers, neighbors, or exes of acquaintances. Each parent has a different threshold for what they consider a risk.

I don't believe a guarantee was ever given.

 

[CdwJava]

These might be worth a read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1161

Worldwide there are some marked differences though. Offenders in the middle east have a much higher incidence of reoffending - but that's using the western definition and the data are flawed at best.

And then there's this: http://innocentjustice.org/2010/25-recidivism-rate-–-really/

It's also very difficult to even look at percentages if only for one reason; most don't get caught a second time.

Yes, I've read the research - studied it extensively as part of my assignment some years ago as well as a research paper in grad school. None of those links appears to contradict the other research upon which I based my previous post. One cannot make an unqualified statement that 40% of "sex offenders" will reoffend, since there are varying categories, and states also categorize these offenders differently. I simply wanted to make it clear that it is not the case that 40% of sex offenders will reoffend. And, in this case, it might appear that the suspect had never been convicted of a sex offense if he never served any time and was not on any registry (at least I assume he wasn't).

Anecdotally, when I worked these crimes it is was exceedingly rare to have a registered sex offender as a suspect in a new offense. The greatest percentage of offenders tended to be previously unconvicted offenders (generally close friends or family members of the victims). The studies also tend to bear that out.

 

[Proserpina]

Okay, I can go with that.

Have a good weekend, folks!

 

[Betty3]

You have a good weekend too, Pro. & everyone else.