Rotherham dad who believes in smacking children has son and daughter removed from family home

Rotherham man loses his children over his belief in corporal punishment
Rotherham man loses his children over his belief in corporal punishment

A Rotherham dad who believes in smacking youngsters to discipline them has lost both his children.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told social workers that he believes youngsters benefit from corporal punishment and admitted smacking his own on the bottom, legs and arms.

He said the children were left with red marks but they ‘did not last long’.

Rotherham Council social workers raised concerns about his parenting skills and determination to have ‘total control’ over his family, and his son - now three - was removed from the family home when he was just a few months old.

His six-month-old sister has also now been removed after a Family Court judge in Sheffield ruled that there was no prospect of their dad changing his domineering behaviour.

Both children are now cared for by their ‘quiet, considered and thoughtful’ maternal uncle and his partner.

Judge Sarah Wright said she felt the children’s mother was unable to protect them from their father.

The little girl - known as child E - was born after a ‘concealed pregnancy’ as her parents tried to keep her under social services’ radar, Sheffield’s Family Court heard.

The mother gave birth at a hospital outside her local area but the little girl was taken from her under a police protection order.

In 2010 the father appeared before the same court and was slammed by a judge for his ‘rigid and inflexible thinking’ in relation to an older child.

He said then that was not prepared to ‘settle for a shade of grey’, but saw everything in black and white, insisting on his right to smack his children.

During that hearing he expressed concern about ‘his rights’ in relation to his children and insisted ‘he had done nothing wrong’ and there was ‘no need’ for him to change.

In the most recent hearing in Sheffield the court was told both parents had been ‘uncooperative and obstructive’ with professionals, culminating in their bid to keep E’s birth a secret.

The mother had ‘aligned herself’ with the father and said she was ‘totally convinced’ that he posed no risk to the children, the court heard.

Explaining her reasons for concealing her pregnancy with E, the mother said she feared she would be put under pressure to have an abortion.

Insisting there was no basis for social workers’ concerns, she said: “There is no reason why we are here”.

But Judge Wright said: “It was clear to me that she cannot separate herself from the father and from his entrenched views.

“Sadly, she has put him before her children. She refused to accept any view or opinion that is not his.

“She singularly fails to appreciate the risk that he poses to any child in his care.”

The judge said the father ‘must feel in control’ and was capable of rude, uncompromising and hostile in his determination to get his own way.

“There is also very little prospect of the father accepting the need to change,” said the judge.