Ipswich mum covers up boyfriend’s sex abuse of daughter

An Ipswich mum ‘selfishly’ reignited a romance with a man who sexually abused her daughter, before covering up the evidence of his continued abuse, a court has heard.

Ipswich mum covers up boyfriend’s sex abuse of daughter. Picture: FILE

An Ipswich mum’s children have been taken away from her after she helped conceal evidence that her partner was sexually abusing her daughter.

The woman, in her 50s, pleaded guilty in Ipswich District Court on December 6, 2022, to failing to disclose belief of sexual offences committed in relation to a child (DV) and possessing child exploitation material (DV).

The court heard her partner was jailed some years ago for sexually abusing her daughter, but once he was released from jail, the woman reignited their romance and invited him back into her home.

The woman later found inappropriate messages on her youngest daughter’s phone, sent by the man, and she confronted her daughter, telling her to delete them and block her partner.

Police later investigated their home and uncovered the messages, along with an image on the woman’s phone of her eldest daughter with her breasts exposed.

Crown prosecutor Amy Stannard said the woman had told police the image had been sent to her on social media, and she had been intending to confront her daughter about it.

However, Ms Stannard said the image had remained on her phone for many months, and the woman had given no explanation for that.

Ms Stannard said the woman had told police she hadn’t reported the inappropriate messages because “she needed him, she thought she loved him” and did not want him to “get in trouble with police”.

The court heard the woman’s partner had since been sentenced to nine years imprisonment for his sexual offending against her daughters.

Although the woman has since been in the community on bail, her children were removed from her care.

Defence barrister Charlotte Smith said the woman had a pattern of dependence upon partners and emphasised that recording a conviction would make her client a reportable offender.

Judge David Kent replied that “that’s the idea”.

He said the child exploitation material offence, although it typically would carry a higher sentence, was the lesser of her two offences in his eyes.

“I regard count one (the failure to disclose) as a very serious breach of parental trust. Children can only rely on their parents,” said Judge Kent.

Ms Stannard echoed his stance, saying, “it’s not that the defendant saw messages on her daughter’s phone and did nothing about it in isolation.”

“This is a circumstance where she has knowledge that her partner at the time has been convicted of child sex offending for her other child – she then welcomed him back into her home.

“She then saw these messages and, not only did she not report it, she in fact instructed her daughter to delete them to save him from getting into trouble with police.”

Judge Kent called the woman’s motives “selfish” and told her “every parent has a primary duty to their child, and that’s something you seem to have overlooked”.

The woman was ultimately sentenced to two years probation.

Convictions were recorded for the failing to disclose, but not for possessing child exploitation material.