I know you are referring to the *5 year old who gave birth, but one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this thread and it seems harsh to say this but it's a fact: the boy committed a sexual offence and the girl too may have committed a sexual offence (probably sexual activity with a child in both cases but I'll have to check as I don't know if 'rape of a child under 13' applies to child offenders).
Yes yes, the police or CPS may decide not to take it further due to the mitigating cirumstances of the very young age of both offenders, but social services will certainly be deeply involved now and as others have said, the girl's mother - if she is considered to be a suitable carer (big IF there) - will probably raise the baby at least for several years.
But what a way to start out parenthood, with both parents having committed a criminal sexual offence. Do cut the romantic crap, those who are pushing it, this event is more like a family tragedy than a romance.
I haven't noticed aanyone pushing the romantic angle. I don't think anyone but you is pushing the criminal angle. They're daft kids, not criminals.
I'm not sure taking the kids away from the home will solve anything. I don't know what the answer is. I just thought to myself, imagine how that child is going to feel when she grows up and realises her mother was 11 when she had her. Then I thought, hang on; she's from that family, which probably means she'll think it's alright. Even amusing maybe. Hell, she'll probably even have a kid herself before she even starts to think about that sort of stuff.
The assumption from some that they will be bad parents because they are young really annoys. Age has nothing to do with how good a parent you may be.
And the fact that some people seriously think putting the baby into care is the solution is gob-smacking. Should twelve year olds be having sex and having babies? Hell no. But it has happened here, that can't be changed. Taking the child away and willingly breaking up the family is not going to help in any way. My nan had a baby at 16. Whilst her daughter wasn't taken in to care, her parents decided to raise it as their own, and my nan wasn't allowed to form any kind of relationship with her. It broke her. She went on to get married and have three more children, but not having that chance to at least prove she could be a good parent at that age broke her heart. At least give these two young parents a chance.
I haven't noticed aanyone pushing the romantic angle. I don't think anyone but you is pushing the criminal angle. They're daft kids, not criminals.
You haven't read the O/P then? What about:
“The baby’s mum and dad have been in a relationship for more than a year, so this isn’t a fleeting romance. They intend to stick together and bring their daughter up together. "
from the Mirror!
And like it or not, they both committed a criminal act to produce this kid so something somewhere has gone badly wrong with their upbringing and it's a lot more than being two daft kids.
“The baby’s mum and dad have been in a relationship for more than a year, so this isn’t a fleeting romance. They intend to stick together and bring their daughter up together. "
from the Mirror!
And like it or not, they both committed a criminal act to produce this kid so something somewhere has gone badly wrong with their upbringing and it's a lot more than being two daft kids.
I don't think that's the case Dave as they are both below the age of consent. Law may have changed in recent years though,. so more than happy to be corrected.
I don't think that's the case Dave as they are both below the age of consent. Law may have changed in recent years though,. so more than happy to be corrected.
I'm looking for the relevant link, but if both the girl and boy are under the age of consent, it is a criminal offence with both being liable.
It's said that prosecutions are unlikely though if both sides agreed to sex and one wasn't taking advantage of the other.
I don't think that's the case Dave as they are both below the age of consent. Law may have changed in recent years though,. so more than happy to be corrected.
Prosecutions of persons under the age of 18
The age of consent is 16. Because children can and do abuse and exploit other children, the Act makes it an offence for children under 16 to engage in sexual activity, to protect children who are victims.
However, children of the same or similar age are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity, where the activity is mutually agreed and there is no abuse or exploitation.
The Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to prosecutors, which sets out the criteria they should consider when deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution.
I don't think that's the case Dave as they are both below the age of consent. Law may have changed in recent years though,. so more than happy to be corrected.
It does seem to be the case, as they were both above the age of criminal responsibility. Section 13 of the SOA 2003 says:
13. Child sex offences committed by children or young persons
(1) A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 9 to 12 if he were aged 18.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
And sections 9 to 12 are:
9.Sexual activity with a child
10.Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
11.Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
12.Causing a child to watch a sexual act
I could have missed something but I think that kids who do this have to rely on the mitigating circumstance of their young age, if they are both of similar age, to escape prosecution or receive a lighter sentence.
there's plenty of people of their age that have had children in the past. the problem is they probably have no experience with children or hard work. kid's in the past helped raise their brothers and sisters and worked, they were ready for a family at a young age. I could be wrong but I bet these two have never had to lift a finger in the way that maybe someone 100 years would of had to. It'll be a big shock the amount of work it takes to care for a child. And not just that, they'll have no time for anything else.
It does seem to be the case, as they were both above the age of criminal responsibility. Section 13 of the SOA 2003 says:
And sections 9 to 12 are:
I could have missed something but I think that kids who do this have to rely on the mitigating circumstance of their young age, if they are both of similar age, to escape prosecution or receive a lighter sentence.
EDIT: See also PrincessTT's post
Thanks everyone, yes that kinda confirms what the police and family liaison workers have told me in the past. Sorry for doubting you Dave.
The assumption from some that they will be bad parents because they are young really annoys. Age has nothing to do with how good a parent you may be.
And the fact that some people seriously think putting the baby into care is the solution is gob-smacking. Should twelve year olds be having sex and having babies? Hell no. But it has happened here, that can't be changed. Taking the child away and willingly breaking up the family is not going to help in any way. My nan had a baby at 16. Whilst her daughter wasn't taken in to care, her parents decided to raise it as their own, and my nan wasn't allowed to form any kind of relationship with her. It broke her. She went on to get married and have three more children, but not having that chance to at least prove she could be a good parent at that age broke her heart. At least give these two young parents a chance.
It's the way most children are raised. They are just not mature enough to look after a baby yet. when I was 12 I was still a kid. I was selfish, innocent and needed a lot of sleep. teens and pre teens find it hard to get along with other people, how can they manage a stroppy toddler, not just for a few hours but every day.
being 16 and 12 is completely different, there is a huge gap in their development.
The thing that made me laugh was the dad saying he was glad they weren't into drugs. But yet he finds it perfectly acceptable for an ELEVEN year old to have unprotected sex and get knocked up! MADNESS!
Thanks everyone, yes that kinda confirms what the police and family liaison workers have told me in the past. Sorry for doubting you Dave.
I really just wanted to make the point that something somewhere has likely gone badly wrong with their upbringing and there is more to it than them just being two daft kids. I just don't buy the 'romance' angle from the Mirror's un-named source.
A baby being with it's 12 year old (child) mother is somehow better than being with adult, responsible adoptive parents? Do me a favour.
Forget the *rights* of the idiot kids in this story - let's focus on the one innocent in this whole sorry mess - the baby. At least give it a chance of a decent life rather than sticking it back into the family unit only to repeat the child-pregnancy cycle 12/13 years down the line.
A baby being with it's 12 year old (child) mother is somehow better than being with adult, responsible adoptive parents? .
Yes. They are the baby's family. There is no evidence that they will not love and care for their baby and it is always best to try and preserve families intact unless there is evidence of abuse or neglect.
The baby has a right to not be snatched from their family with insufficient reason.
People don't have the right to snatch babies from young, poorer, unmarried, less educated or families with the wrong views in the UK. Although a worrying number of people clearly are in favour of that level of social control. It isn't going to happen. Unless of course the mother is foreign and mentally I'll. then of course we do snatch babies
Yes. They are the baby's family. There is no evidence that they will not love and care for their baby and it is always best to try and preserve families intact unless there is evidence of abuse or neglect.
Oh I daresay a 12 year girl will love for her baby and probably give it lots of care, what with her already showing how responsible she is. She'll do that until such time as she gets bored, go on Facebook, go to a party, go out with friends, go to an after-school club, wants to go to on holiday or the bazallion other things teenage girls want to do that don't involve bringing up a child.
Of course the rest of the family will be involved, most likely more so than the mother, so I don't see why another family doesn't raise her. Just because she's the biological mother doesn't, IMO, mean she's the best equipped to bring her daughter up.
Oh I daresay a 12 year girl will love for her baby and probably give it lots of care, what with her already showing how responsible she is. She'll do that until such time as she gets bored, go on Facebook, go to a party, go out with friends, go to an after-school club, wants to go to on holiday or the bazallion other things teenage girls want to do that don't involve bringing up a child.
Of course the rest of the family will be involved, most likely more so than the mother, so I don't see why another family doesn't raise her. Just because she's the biological mother doesn't, IMO, mean she's the best equipped to bring her daughter up.
You can't just take children from their parents for no reason. If they have support from their families, then leave them be.
A baby being with it's 12 year old (child) mother is somehow better than being with adult, responsible adoptive parents? Do me a favour.
Forget the *rights* of the idiot kids in this story - let's focus on the one innocent in this whole sorry mess - the baby. At least give it a chance of a decent life rather than sticking it back into the family unit only to repeat the child-pregnancy cycle 12/13 years down the line.
. Just because she's the biological mother doesn't, IMO, mean she's the best equipped to bring her daughter up.
It doesn't. I agree. Luckily however we don't confiscate babies and hand them to those families we think are the best equipped to raise them because that is a slippery slope. What if someone thought you were I'll equity to raise your kids because you were too young it old when they were born? What about those poor or disabled parents? Don't they have a responsibility to think about the fact that there are more suitable families that would like their child?
“The baby’s mum and dad have been in a relationship for more than a year, so this isn’t a fleeting romance. They intend to stick together and bring their daughter up together. "
from the Mirror!
And like it or not, they both committed a criminal act to produce this kid so something somewhere has gone badly wrong with their upbringing and it's a lot more than being two daft kids.
So jail them then? Put them on the sex offenders' register?
IThere is no sense in treating them like adult predators.
So jail them then? Put them on the sex offenders' register?
No, and I haven't suggested that (in this case) but there could be other circumstances where that might apply, which is why the law makes what they did a criminal offence. They committed a criminal act or acts but are rightly unlikely to be prosecuted in these particular circumstances.
There is no sense in treating them like adult predators.
I agree with that - however, it is right that the social services are no doubt heavily involved with this family now in order to try and ensure the best possible long-term outcome for the baby and his/her immature parents.
He says "He's proud of her" (Wheres rolleyes when you need it?)
He's got a son of 9 and another daughter of 3, so she's got another 8 years to find a boyfriend!!! He's split up with his "partner", so wasn't even married to the mother. I don't think he mentioned how old he is, but the mothers a grandmother at 27 and his mother is a great grandmother at the age of 56!!!
What is going on with the morals in this country? Its all the Hello/OK magazine generation. Just have a kid & we might worry about getting married afterwards!!!
It might seem a very old fashioned view to a lot of people, but there has never been anything wrong with going out with someone, falling in love, getting engaged, getting married then have children. Has worked perfectly well for me and anyone else I know.
Comments
I haven't noticed aanyone pushing the romantic angle. I don't think anyone but you is pushing the criminal angle. They're daft kids, not criminals.
I'm not sure taking the kids away from the home will solve anything. I don't know what the answer is. I just thought to myself, imagine how that child is going to feel when she grows up and realises her mother was 11 when she had her. Then I thought, hang on; she's from that family, which probably means she'll think it's alright. Even amusing maybe. Hell, she'll probably even have a kid herself before she even starts to think about that sort of stuff.
And the fact that some people seriously think putting the baby into care is the solution is gob-smacking. Should twelve year olds be having sex and having babies? Hell no. But it has happened here, that can't be changed. Taking the child away and willingly breaking up the family is not going to help in any way. My nan had a baby at 16. Whilst her daughter wasn't taken in to care, her parents decided to raise it as their own, and my nan wasn't allowed to form any kind of relationship with her. It broke her. She went on to get married and have three more children, but not having that chance to at least prove she could be a good parent at that age broke her heart. At least give these two young parents a chance.
You haven't read the O/P then? What about:
“The baby’s mum and dad have been in a relationship for more than a year, so this isn’t a fleeting romance. They intend to stick together and bring their daughter up together. "
from the Mirror!
And like it or not, they both committed a criminal act to produce this kid so something somewhere has gone badly wrong with their upbringing and it's a lot more than being two daft kids.
Interestingly, Not a word about this case (on the front page of the Sun) was mentioned on today's Wright Stuff. Funny that.
I don't think that's the case Dave as they are both below the age of consent. Law may have changed in recent years though,. so more than happy to be corrected.
I'm looking for the relevant link, but if both the girl and boy are under the age of consent, it is a criminal offence with both being liable.
It's said that prosecutions are unlikely though if both sides agreed to sex and one wasn't taking advantage of the other.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/
It does seem to be the case, as they were both above the age of criminal responsibility. Section 13 of the SOA 2003 says:
And sections 9 to 12 are:
I could have missed something but I think that kids who do this have to rely on the mitigating circumstance of their young age, if they are both of similar age, to escape prosecution or receive a lighter sentence.
EDIT: See also PrincessTT's post
Thanks everyone, yes that kinda confirms what the police and family liaison workers have told me in the past. Sorry for doubting you Dave.
It's the way most children are raised. They are just not mature enough to look after a baby yet. when I was 12 I was still a kid. I was selfish, innocent and needed a lot of sleep. teens and pre teens find it hard to get along with other people, how can they manage a stroppy toddler, not just for a few hours but every day.
being 16 and 12 is completely different, there is a huge gap in their development.
The parents of those kids should shoulder the responsibility.
I really just wanted to make the point that something somewhere has likely gone badly wrong with their upbringing and there is more to it than them just being two daft kids. I just don't buy the 'romance' angle from the Mirror's un-named source.
Forget the *rights* of the idiot kids in this story - let's focus on the one innocent in this whole sorry mess - the baby. At least give it a chance of a decent life rather than sticking it back into the family unit only to repeat the child-pregnancy cycle 12/13 years down the line.
The baby has a right to not be snatched from their family with insufficient reason.
People don't have the right to snatch babies from young, poorer, unmarried, less educated or families with the wrong views in the UK. Although a worrying number of people clearly are in favour of that level of social control. It isn't going to happen. Unless of course the mother is foreign and mentally I'll. then of course we do snatch babies
Of course the rest of the family will be involved, most likely more so than the mother, so I don't see why another family doesn't raise her. Just because she's the biological mother doesn't, IMO, mean she's the best equipped to bring her daughter up.
You can't just take children from their parents for no reason. If they have support from their families, then leave them be.
Adults can make shocking parents too
It doesn't. I agree. Luckily however we don't confiscate babies and hand them to those families we think are the best equipped to raise them because that is a slippery slope. What if someone thought you were I'll equity to raise your kids because you were too young it old when they were born? What about those poor or disabled parents? Don't they have a responsibility to think about the fact that there are more suitable families that would like their child?
And grandkids already at school.
So jail them then? Put them on the sex offenders' register?
IThere is no sense in treating them like adult predators.
No, and I haven't suggested that (in this case) but there could be other circumstances where that might apply, which is why the law makes what they did a criminal offence. They committed a criminal act or acts but are rightly unlikely to be prosecuted in these particular circumstances.
I agree with that - however, it is right that the social services are no doubt heavily involved with this family now in order to try and ensure the best possible long-term outcome for the baby and his/her immature parents.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-dad-of-uks-youngest-parents-calls-lbc-89014
He says "He's proud of her" (Wheres rolleyes when you need it?)
He's got a son of 9 and another daughter of 3, so she's got another 8 years to find a boyfriend!!! He's split up with his "partner", so wasn't even married to the mother. I don't think he mentioned how old he is, but the mothers a grandmother at 27 and his mother is a great grandmother at the age of 56!!!
What is going on with the morals in this country? Its all the Hello/OK magazine generation. Just have a kid & we might worry about getting married afterwards!!!
It might seem a very old fashioned view to a lot of people, but there has never been anything wrong with going out with someone, falling in love, getting engaged, getting married then have children. Has worked perfectly well for me and anyone else I know.