Hi there,

I'm not gonna give my life story or indeed a detailed account of the last 1,576 days since the police raided my home in April 2018.  Suffice to say, it has been and still is, hellish.

A brief summary would be:

April 2018 - Police raid home, I leave home voluntarily and have not resided with my family since
January 2020 - Get 16 month Custodial sentence for Indecent Images, serve 8 months, released on extended license for 12 months
August 2022 - Still not living at home, see my kids every day but cannot stay at home

There would be about another hundred entries on that list to cover all the events in between but that's the crux of it.

At the moment we have had Local Authority (Children's Services and social worker) involvement for all of those 1,576 days (4 years, 4 months).
They move goalposts constantly and require duplicate 'work' to be done for me and my wife over those 4 years, in the form of courses and assessments. it seems unless the reports support their current thinking of my level of risk, they keep doubling down until they spot some negatives and then focus on them.  It's now gotten to the point where they are forcing us to tell our Daughter why their Daddy can't stay at home or be in a room alone with her, when previously this was not a requirement.  The list goes on.

Although I have never committed a contact offence and no evidence I ever would or have, and my SHPO not enforcing anything to do with contact regarding ANY children, never mind my own, it seems we are all judged for a contact crime regardless. I can see no difference in how I am treated vs. how an actual paedophile is treated.

We made it clear all we wanted was to be reunited as a family. We understand things can never be 'normal' again but we desperately wanted to try and so we have been more than compliant for all of those years, only to be in a position all this time later that is worse than it was back then.  Despite no rule-breaking from either of us regarding my visits, multiple intrusive assessments, core group meetings, me going to jail, Probation and extended license duration being fine etc. They have now said they think I am too high risk to allow me to move back in, despite no events.
I sincerely believe they thought my wife would leave me during this period and make that goal a non-issue anyway, as they have all made this as difficult as possible to achieve and constantly knocked us down even when we thought we couldn't get lower.

I've managed to be employed since released from prison and stayed squeaky clean and in employment, even though I had to turn down multiple job offers because of the police threatening disclosure and placing draconian demands on the work computer equipment i might have been using if employed by them.  Despite all that I managed to set my own company up and be employed freelance on my own equipment and got around the need for Professional Indemnity insurance (which I could NOT get and most companies require you to have). So many obstacles overcome, not to mention our mental health issues due to the life we are having to lead (Anxiety, Depression etc), trying to raise 2 kids (3 and 8 now) and shield them from my mistakes, and not wallow in shame and self pity.
Here was me saying I wouldn't give you all the details...ahemm. Well, that's still only a synopsis really.

Anyway, I guess my questions are in regards to the SOMU involvement (PPU) with myself. 
I am always accommodating and open with them and went to a recent interview with one of their Polygraph experts where I was asked to voluntarily participate in a lie detector test, which I said I would not do, but am more than willing to do the interview. They subsequently made a report based on that and I believe it contributed negatively to my assessment and therefore influenced the decision by the LA to not allow me to return home.
I explained rationally and calmly why I would not participate in the actual polygraph but of course everybody involved with my case would have an initial response of "Why would he refuse the polygraph if he had nothing to hide?  See, we are right to doubt him..." 
In a sense I played into their hands but I have always wholeheartedly disagreed with polygraphs on many levels, way before me taking one was ever a possibility. They are simply way too unreliable, especially if you are telling the truth.  If they are 80 - 90% reliable, as they claim they are then that still means that 1 or 2 out of every 10 people doing one will potentially be described as liars with very serious potential consequences because of it. However, if I was found not to be lying it's not as if they will all change their opinions of my risk and suddenly say good things about me. I had everything to risk and nothing to gain, but I guess unless your entire family's future is on a knife edge for over 4 years, you wouldn't understand or agree with that logic, as they clearly didn't.

I am unclear as to my PPU officers obligations towards me and would appreciate some guidance on this if possible please?
Recently they came to do their forensic check-up on my equipment and at the end I asked if everything was fine and was told it was. Two weeks later I am in a very important meeting about my family's future with my wife, Social Worker, Social Worker manager and both of our solicitors when they decided to add that when police did a visit recently some stuff was 'flagged'. Not illegal and not requiring any action at all but a very vague mention of normal pornographic material that might be seen as not appropriate for someone such as myself to look at. I was fuming as I was told nothing was wrong by the PPU officer and again I think this was an attempt to further shame and belittle me and shock my wife into doubting me.  
I emailed my PPU officer afterwards, asking for an explanation of this and she never got back to me.
Does she have a responsibility to flag these things with me that she will share in a meeting like that?  

Can PPU enforce that any work equipment I use (that is not my personal equipment) has to be monitored?  Can they demand that if the company is not totally secured using VPN's then I can't work for them without monitoring software installed or disclosure to them made?
There is nothing in my SHPO about this either, other than my personal equipment being monitored.

Should I go above my PPU officer to get these rules stated formally to me, as i think if I'm to be monitored and managed by them for another 8 years then I need to know what's going on and what my rights are and are not?

I'm sorry for the rambling. I don't ever talk about this to anyone and I guess once I started I couldn't hold back!!

Thanks for any insight you can give.

When it comes to using computers, some SHPOs contain an exclusion clause, along the lines of:

"This prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work, Job Centre Plus, Public Library, educational establishment or other such place, provided that in relation to his place of work, within 3 days of him commencing use of such a computer, he notifies the police VISOR team of this use."

My PPU explained, that it just would not be possible for them to install monitoring software on a work computer, or even to check the browsing history, because of data protection rules. They would in effect, be spying on the employer, as well as the user, and the employer has committed no crime. Something similar applies to computers in the job centre and in libraries, which automatically delete a person's browsing history, after use.

As for disclosing to the employer, the PPU can do that, but they ought to be able to identify a clear risk first. Disclosure is something that PPU often use as a threat, to get a person to go along with something, that is not actually part of their SHPO. But there is a formal process for disclosure, which the police must follow, which involves setting out what the risk is, in writing, and why the disclosure is necessary. It can't be done, just because they feel like it.

When it comes to the PPU sharing information about you with social workers, that is permitted, and they don't have to tell you what they are sharing. Just assume that everything you tell them will be shared with the social workers. Same with polygraphs. There should not be any inference drawn, from refusal to take a voluntary polygraph, but it can still be taken into account, when assessing somebody's risk.

From reading about other cases, I think that if the social workers are refusing to allow you to live at home, then the best option may be to get an independent risk assessment done, by a professional and then go through the family courts to challenge the LA. 

• 
  

All good advice. The one extra point worth making is that there are very few people in this country who see any difference at all between any people who have a sexual offence on their record, regardless of the details. The greater their safeguarding responsibility, the more likely they are to insist on all sorts of paperwork and assessments, just to avoid having to take responsibility. They are terrified that they might be held responsible when what they see as inevitable happens, or it might just be outright hostility based on prejudice. It might eventually come down to having to go to the family court to get this sorted out, so start preparing yourself for that. Social services might well be hoping for that, so that someone else can make the decision that they don't want to make.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Thanks Punter.

On your last point, the LA commissioned an independent body to asses me and my wife and their assessment seemed fairer than others we've had and their conclusions were that it would not be impossible to manage me moving back home, with certain proviso's and questions answered.
As usual though, the LA chose to focus only on the 'negative' aspects of the report which just reinforce their bias. They claim they don't ignore the positives but we have had complaints we've made upheld at the highest level of the LA which prove they do.
Anyway, the negatives being what happens overnight if I'm living at home and my wife is asleep?  Funny eh?  
Also, just the general risk that I might be an abuser.

Not much I can do in the face of that as they are the heroic people fighting the good fight and general public opinion would back that up, with me being the anti-christ and better off dead according to most people in society.

Yeah, our social worker has already said that she thinks that would be maybe a good thing. We have hundreds of examples of them 'covering their backs' and I've even called them out on several times. The 'core group' is a fancy means to share responsibility for decisions, or rather indecision. They're scared to death of making a call and then it all going horribly wrong and being in the media. Can't blame them in some regards but then again just do your bloody job right and that worry goes away, on the most part.  Not fair that we all get treated as such because of fear and a minority of people who go onto something more. They need a more nuanced approach to this stuff but the truth is although they operate under the banner of protecting our children, in the real world they are protecting themselves and the organisation primarily, children secondary.

Having to let some stranger sit with my daughter over many hours and disclose to her 'age appropriate' explanations of why I'm not living at home and can't be in a room with her fills me with dread and fury in equal regard. They have no understanding of the mental turmoil this will cause her and we gave that explanation and examples of it to them all and now, near the end they have insisted it has to happen rather than suggest, all with the threat of care proceedings hanging over us - after 4 years of this arrangement and nothing negative happening!  They just turn the screw tighter and tighter when they don't get what they want and our children are suffering. Yes, originally down to me and i couldn't be more ashamed but we have paid the price tenfold now and yet they still hunt for more blood. 

They claim to have a holistic approach to these proceedings, considering everything, including children's mental health and what they want and based on all the work we do etc but the reality is because they cannot categorically rule out me being a monster, they will always treat me like one.
If it was any other situation, nobody would stand for this kind of discrimination but of course we can't go to the press or complain too loudly as they have you in their vice-like grip of fear. When you disagree with them they claim you are in denial or minimising things, you just can't win. Luckily I have a wife who gives everything and takes them to task on everything too, but even that is not enough because they are the heroes, remember?

So much of your post mirrors my situation including the polygraph test, difficulties with Children's Services and not being allowed to live at home (even though I have notified the police that I stay at the home in excess of 12 hours each day). I agreed to do a polygraph test which was being trialled by my local constabulary. I did so as the VISOR team assured me it would be viewed favorably by Children's Services when the time came to review whether I could return home to my family. The test involved a series of probing questions, more akin to a fishing expedition, with some questions a clear invasion of my privacy and unrelated to my conviction. I also assumed I would be asked questions about my own children, to establish whether there were (or could be) safeguarding issues. There were no questions about my children at all and having answered all the questions, I was then 'hooked' up to a computer screen where a video began playing. It started with an introduction, a reminder that the test was voluntary and that I had agreed beforehand that I had not consumed or used illicit drugs or alcohol in the last 24 hours. The police officer conducting the test had never mentioned the word alcohol and when I stopped the test to inform him I had been drinking the previous evening, he seemed a bit irritated. He seemed anxious to complete the test and tried to bully me into finishing the test but I remained steadfast as the requirement to sit the test (no alcohol to be consumed 24 hours prior to the test) was not satisfied and I had never been informed about this requirement when agreeing to the test a few weeks beforehand. They wanted me to re-sit the test at a later date, but after taking legal advice I declined. The legal advice I was given was "under no circumstances should you agree to sit the test." The polygraph test is called 'VAST' and was on trial. It is not endorsed by the Home Office or ACPO and looking on the company's website the only endorsement I could see was from the Natural Body Building Association of Great Britain, hardly a glowing reference where the outcome of the test could have such a major impact on my life. Of course this was all viewed in a negative light by Children's Services who at the time of writing, have still not made a decision whether we can live together as a family.  

Some of your story around Social Services so much mirrors my own experience, here is some of my history

I was sentenced for an online chat with an underage female who was an under cover police office. This chat was on an Adult Website where the profile said the age was 18 but somewhere in the conversation that they were underage, the age was mentioned once and I just didn't see it. 

With poor legal representation I was sentenced to a custodial sentence and whilst in prison I spoke to my partner a lot and we agreed to put the past behind us and try again once I was released from prions

When released from prison my probation officer agreed I could return and live with my family but Social Services said I was too much of a risk and that I couldn't go to the family home for any reason at all and could only see my children in the community. This was in Jan 2021

In December 2021 after a long drawn out complaint procedure with Social Services I was finally allowed to visit the family home and see my children provided my partner was supervising me. I now spend virtually every day at the family home up to my 12 hours I am allowed. I have clarified with my PPU (in writing) that I can stay for up to 12 hours and when I go home for the night the clock resets and I can spend another 12 hours the next day.

It was only the complaint procedure that actually got anything changed. I am still looking for more access and to be able to stay nights and eventually live at the family home. Social Services say I present a risk to the children even though they are 15 and 14 both Male (my offence was against a female). I am unable to even visit the family home if no one is at home as Social Services say I may put cameras up to film the children which is a load of rubbish and not even related to my offence.

Social Services have now closed the case saying that an agreed safety plan is in place for me to only have supervised access in the family home. My PPU is happy for me to have further access and to be able to live with my family...however Social Services say that this is not possible.

With regards to porn being found on your laptop I had exactly the opposite reaction from my PPU on a visit. They were surprised there was no porn and told me I am able to watch porn if I so wish!! They didn't seem to flag it as a risk if I did watch porn...they actually seemed more to see it as strange they couldn't find any history of porn.

With your employers equipment you only have to tell them you are using it. They have no right to check that equipment or monitor your internet history on it. They can't force internet history to be kept on the machine as your employer may have policies about deleting the history so many days. They also probably take the view that most companies now restrict the type of sites you can view on a company machine and monitor internet history of employees....if your laptop is monitored this way be an employer they may well pick up on anything illegal that was being done.

This is another example, of decisions about risk, being made on the basis of suspicion, not evidence. The problem is that to overturn the social workers decision, you often have to go through the courts. Once a judge looks at it, they often decide the suspicions are baseless, but by that time, it could be years later and you have missed the chance to be with your kids.

Ultimately this is how it works. SHPOs are court orders. Only a judge's interpretation is valid. Not the police's. Not probation's. Not social services'. There were many things in mine that the police were clearly overstepping the mark with and acting under what is called "under colour of law". However, my only relief was to call their bluff, have them arrest me and then have it thrown out in court. I chose not to. It doesn't mean that the police and social services are correct, but the personal cost may be too much to go through with. Only an individual can make that decision based on their own personal circumstances.

There's an old Chinese proverb. “The bamboo that bends is stronger than the oak that resists.”