my coworker is dating a convicted pedophile

by Alison Green on September 16, 2024

A reader writes:

I’m in a weird situation with a few coworkers, and don’t know what to do.

My desk mate, Beth, is roommates with a coworker, Sally. Sally works in our department, but her office is in a different part of the building.

Sally recently started dating someone and confided in Beth that boyfriend, Jerry, is a convicted pedophile.

Sally’s mom, Kathy, also works in our department, in the same office as Beth and I are in.

We are sure that Kathy does not know this information, as she is friendly with Jerry and has a young tween daughter, Lucy, who is allowed to spend time at the apartment with Sally and Jerry.

Morally, I feel obligated to tell Kathy about Jerry’s conviction, but I don’t want the fallout to affect the workplace. I considered texting a screenshot of his public record to Kathy from a fake phone number. Beth doesn’t want me to — she is concerned that Sally will think she’s behind it because she hasn’t told anyone else, which will cause a blow-up for her, both at work and at home.

What would you suggest to protect the child, while also avoiding as much workplace drama as possible?

Since Sally shared Jerry’s history with Beth, why hasn’t Beth said to her, “Hey, I really think you need to tell your mom since he’s around your sister”?

And if that doesn’t change anything: “I’m not comfortable keeping this from your mom when she has a kid at home. I’d prefer you share it with her yourself, but otherwise I need to tell her.” (Or she could skip the warning and just tell Kathy what she needs to know.)

If Beth isn’t willing to do that, you could use a similar framing with Beth yourself: “I understand you’re worried about Sally being upset and blaming you, but we’re talking about a kid’s safety. I’m not comfortable keeping this from Kathy, knowing she’s allowing him around Lucy.”

And then tell Kathy what you know, and let her know she can confirm it in public records herself.

If Sally chooses to respond to that with drama … well, so be it. That worry can’t trump the risk of a kid getting abused.

You may also like:
{ 413 comments }

{ 413 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    Hi all. There’s a lot of speculation in the comment section about whether Jerry is actually a convicted pedophile. The letter says that he’s a convicted pedophile — she saw his record and it clearly wasn’t for peeing in public — and I ask that we take her at her word, not speculate on ways in which maybe his behavior wasn’t that bad, per the commenting rules of the site.

    Reply ↓
  2. cindylouwho*

    The fact that the convicted individual lets the tween hang out at their apartment despite knowing that it’s likely a violation of their conviction is Not A Great Sign….

    Reply ↓
      1. Sugarholic Teacher*

        Also, Sally should probably run from this relationship, because guys who take advantage of children usually have no qualms taking advantage of other vulnerable people too (women, the elderly, people with disabilities, etc.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Guys like that deliberately pick women they can manipulate and get them access to a child. The fact Sally is oblivious to this is really concerning.

          This is definitely a speak up and let the chips fall where they may situation. If Sally acts up at work over the simple information that her mom should know the sister is around a pedophile, then that’s a Sally problem. Which if it causes work issues, can be dealt with as a work issue. Quite frankly Sally’s judgment is really off here.

          Reply ↓
          1. CityMouse*

            It is sadly so, so common for the child to get blamed by the family too. I remember a case where a girl cried because 12 strangers convicted her uncle when her own mom told her it was her fault.

            Reply ↓
          3. Ellie*

            OP might approach this through the parole angle as well. She could ask Sally if its a violation of his parole to be around his sister, and point out that she’s putting her boyfriend’s freedom at risk by allowing them to interact.

            But either way, its a courtesy to let Sally know before talking to her mum, but in no way should her reaction change what OP has to do. Everyone who is likely to bring children around him should know about his past.

            Reply ↓
            1. Princess Sparklepony*

              If Sally isn’t telling her mom, someone needs to do it for the sister’s sake. Sally is falling down on the job as a decent human being. If she wants to date a pedophile, that’s her deal but she’s not allowed to put others at risk.

              Kathy has to be told pretty much yesterday so she can keep her younger daughter safe. Who tells her is immaterial. Whoever tells her soonest is the one in the right. And I don’t think it’s going to be Sally. She’s had multiple chances.

              Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          Also, Sally should probably run from this relationship, because guys who take advantage of children usually have no qualms taking advantage of other vulnerable people too

          Of course she *should*. But she’s a jerk who is apparently OK with allowing him to do something that’s almost certainly illegal and putting her sister at risk.

          Or she’s delusional enough to think that “He’s changed!” or “With me it will be different” or whatever her particular delusion is.

          In either case, there is no one to talk to here.

          Reply ↓
          1. Anonomite*

            Sally may think that since he served his sentence, he’s “cured”, and he’d never take the risk of going back to prison again. Some folks don’t understand that this particular brand of criminality isn’t the same as others.

            Reply ↓
        3. GlitterIsEverything*

          This. There’s usually a pattern of these guys looking for women who care more about being with a guy than they do about their kids (or the kids in their life).

          This gets into the whole discussion that AAM revisits periodically about what you can and can’t do to help someone in an abusive situation, too. It’s higher stakes than some, because kids are involved, but not entirely dissimilar.

          Reply ↓
          1. Ellie*

            Or people who are so kind and forgiving that they are willing to given people the benefit of the doubt over and over again. Sally may not have properly connected the dots here. Her reaction when she’s confronted about this will tell OP a lot about how far she can be trusted on this issue.

            Reply ↓
            1. Ellis Bell*

              My understanding is you’re on the UK sex offender register for life if it’s a serious offence, but someone can be given a temporary registration if the person is young and the offence was the kind of thing punished with more of a caution than a long prison sentence. Interesting to know how other jurisdictions work.

              Reply ↓
          3. Sarah Canofcoke*

            Depends on what he was convicted of and what “Tier” he is. Some are for life, some for 10 years, some for 5, 3, 1 and some don’t have to register at all.

            Reply ↓
          4. Kesnit*

            Maybe, maybe not. Depending on what he was convicted of and when it happened, it is possible that he has been removed from the registry. (Many states allow a person to petition to be removed 10-20 years after conviction.)

            Reply ↓
            1. fhqwhgads*

              Am I misreading or doesn’t the letter reference sending Kathy a link to his record in the registry? So he must be in the registry right now. But that’s a separate question of if anything he’s doing is a parole violation. I think. I don’t work in the justice system so I don’t know for sure.

              Reply ↓
              1. Hamster Manager*

                I think she just says ‘public record’. She could mean arrest records, conviction/court documents, or news articles. Depending on the case, some offenders are able to weasel out of being put on the registry even when they should definitely be on there.

                Reply ↓
                1. Hamster Manager*

                  Source: I easily found all these things when googling my convicted coworker who was not on the registry (but should have been).

          5. Worldwalker*

            Yes.

            However, that doesn’t mean there’s a parole officer or probation officer you can talk to, unless he’s one of the extreme cases that gets lifetime probation after his sentence has ended.

            Going directly to the police would probably be more effective.

            Reply ↓
          6. Princess Sparklepony*

            Depending on his sentence and what is required. But I think you can be on SO list and be off parole. I don’t think they are linked.

            The SO list tends to have a longer term than parole. In NY it’s 20 years with three different levels of offense.

            Reply ↓
      3. Lacey*

        He may not be on parole anymore.

        Parole can be pretty short and if parole officers are overwhelmed they can decide to end parole early for people who seem like they’re not a danger. Which, unfortunately, predators are great at seeming like they are not a danger.

        Reply ↓
      4. Jellyfish Catcher*

        This. It is very, very possible that Jerry selected Sally because of her the tween sister
        and Sally’s lack of concern or awareness of the danger to her sister.

        Everyone needs to be informed ASAP, including / beginning with the parole officer and Kathy.
        There may be drama – but that possibility is nothing compared to what could happen to the little sister. I would also hope that Kathy never lets the younger sister visit Sally’s home without a trusted adult; Sally cannot be trusted to have good judgment with this man or the next one.

        Reply ↓
      1. academic fashion*

        Yes. I would genuinely skip all of the steps AAM has outlined here –– these are for protecting the social order within the company –– and jump right to reporting. This has to be reported. It had to be reported when you first learned of it, OP. This is not a thing to write into AAM about.

        Reply ↓
        1. Excel Jedi*

          This. If this child is in danger, others also may be. Predators who are truly remorseful keep themselves away from temptation and within in the rules of their probations. This person is (most likely) doing neither.

          Reply ↓
            1. ferrina*

              If it was the latter case, then it’s still on Sally to tell Kathy “hey, my new boyfriend has this conviction, this is what it’s for.”

              It’s not blowing things up- it’s sharing information that Kathy would want to know and directly impacts how Kathy is caring for her child. This is information that Sally has been deliberately hiding. OP isn’t saying that they are going to tell the whole office; they are going to tell the person that they know is already leaving their tween with the boyfriend (Sally is theoretically there, but we don’t know if she is there 100% of the time or if there is grooming happening. I think we can safely not trust Sally’s judgement).

              Reply ↓
            2. Irish Teacher.*

              Honestly, I think an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old would be concerning enough and I wouldn’t want my preteen daughter hanging around with somebody like that. Sure, it’s possible they were just very immature and didn’t realise that an 18 year old has a lot of power over a 15 year old and that most 15 year olds are not ready to have sex but might not feel comfortable saying that to an older boyfriend, but it is equally likely that they were taking advantage of a younger person quite deliberately.

              And if it were my sister or daughter, I would not be taking the chance.

              And honestly, if it were a case where he was very immature at 18, dated somebody significantly younger than him and didn’t realise they were too young to be having sex and wasn’t willing to choose between dating somebody his own age and waiting for sex but matured and is now horrified at the realisation that his younger self may well have inadvertantly pushed a child into something she wasn’t ready for…well, I would think in that case, he would understand why parents would be wary of their children being around him and would not have a preteen to his house.

              The fact that he does have his girlfriend’s sister around is…not a good sign as others have said.

              Yeah, I guess it’s possible he also doesn’t consider how bad it looks, possibly because of continuing immaturity, but…I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation. Not by a long shot.

              And even if it was a realistic possibility, I think ensuring a child’s safety is the priority here.

              Reply ↓
            3. I wear my sunglasses at night*

              Pedophiles THRIVE on that type of “but 18 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend! Drunk guy peeing on the street corner!!!” apologisim. It lets them continue to victimize people and get away with it.
              Sally has had every opportunity to disclose this news to her MOM and YOUNGER SISTER including the fact that Boyfriend was among that “poor disenfranchised guys who were to drunk to find a Taco Bell bathroom” or whatever. That she hasn’t told them AT ALL suggests that either Boyfriend is on the list for very legitimate reasons and/or Sally is too dumb/apathetic/selfish to know any better.

              Either way, miss me with the “oh well what if he’s not actually a child molester, what if he [insert actually rare and inaccurate examples of pedopholia accusations]!!!”

              Reply ↓
              1. Worldwalker*

                What I was trying to say is that we don’t have enough information to really give good advice, because some of the critical information wasn’t provided. If we make one assumption, the recommendations would be for insufficient action; with another, it would be completely over the top. And we don’t know which one is applicable, or a lot of other possibilities.

                Reply ↓
                1. Jennifer Strange*

                  Telling Kathy is good advice regardless of what he was convicted of because it gives her the ability to investigate and make her own decision about her underage daughter. Maybe she’ll decide his crime wasn’t a big deal, maybe she’ll decide she doesn’t want her younger daughter around him, but she will have information to make that choice that she doesn’t currently have.

                  Also, the LW states they saw Jerry’s record so they presumably know what he was convicted of. I don’t know why you’re so intent on playing devil’s advocate on this.

                2. Ellie*

                  Honestly I don’t think it matters, Kathy is the one who needs to make the decisions around who she allows her minor child to be around. Sally can take that up directly with Kathy if there’s a conflict, but she needs to know.

                  If Kathy already knew and it was a question of whether to inform the police or not, then what is crime was and whether he’s on the register is relevant. Regarding whether to tell Kathy, it isn’t.

        2. Butterfly Counter*

          It had to be reported when you first learned of it, OP.

          This is not necessarily true. It doesn’t sound as though OP is a mandated reporter. Even if she was, this would still be an iffy situation to report to CPS. It’s second-hand knowledge that a child is within the vicinity of a convicted pedophile while under supervision of another adult. No one is alleging abuse.

          I don’t think it’s a bad idea to get in touch with the parole officer if OP knows how to do so. I’m also just for talking to Kathy and let the chips fall as they may. But it’s not OP’s responsibility unless she knows for a fact that abuse is occurring.

          Reply ↓
          1. Princess Pumpkin Spice*

            This is too important not to mention, but there are a handful of states where EVERYONE, regardless of profession, is considered a mandated reporter.

            I just want to flag that for OP, you, and the commenters in general.

            Reply ↓
            1. Czhorat*

              I am the opposite of a lawyer, but so far as I understand “mandatory reporter” means you are required to report evidence of child sexual abuse, not that you have to report the presence of someone with a past conviction.

              Reply ↓
              1. Nice cup of tea*

                A child spending time in the apartment of a child sex offender is exactly the sort of thing which should be mandatory to report.

                Reply ↓
              2. Freya*

                Nope. There’s a bunch of different things that trigger a mandatory reporting action, and concern due to a child spending time (especially if it’s unsupervised) with a convicted sexual offender is one of them. Even without evidence, you’re required to report things of concern, because the longer the paper trail of concerned reports is, the closer the child gets to the top of the very long list of children that severely under-resourced departments are going to investigate. One report that doesn’t indicate imminent harm will not make that child a high priority for investigation, but the more reports are made then the higher the chances. And reports of concerns will be used to corroborate reports of evidence made by other people.

                In my mandatory reporter training, we were told to make the report any time we had any concerns (modified by any local racial bias issues) and let the authorities prioritise their response (if any) accordingly. The response team here doesn’t have the resources to respond to everything, so they prioritise reports of imminent risk and LONG lists of reported concerns over short lists.

                Reply ↓
            2. Hlao-roo*

              From a quick google, it looks like Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wyoming are the four “everyone is a mandated reporter” states in the US.

              Reply ↓
              1. Rainy*

                There are also states where the mandatory reporter laws include wide swaths of professions, such that in our previous state, my husband and I were both mandatory reporters, me because of who my employer was and him because of the specific nature of his work.

                Reply ↓
                1. Freya*

                  I teach partner dancing as a hobby, primarily to adults. But because a minor COULD join the class (even though we require the presence of a responsible adult) I’m a mandatory reporter in that context. Not just for minors, but also for vulnerable adults – if I have reason to be concerned about abuse of a disabled person or elder abuse of or by someone in my class, I’m required to report it.

          2. ferrina*

            This isn’t what “mandated reporter” means.

            A mandated reporter is someone that is legally obligated to contact CPS/social services if a kid shows signs of being abused/neglected (including if the kid reports it). Teachers are an example of mandated reporters.

            I think academic fashion is saying that OP should tell Kathy about the conviction. There’s not evidence of current abuse, but that’s really critical information that Kathy doesn’t have. I would be livid if someone knew my kid was left with a convicted pedophile and didn’t tell me.

            Reply ↓
            1. Gudrid the Well Traveled*

              This is a really good counterpoint to the ‘what if Sally gets mad and causes trouble at work’ argument. Sally’s mother is equally if not more likely to be mad at people who knew but kept quiet to preserve their peace in the workplace.

              Reply ↓
              1. Princess Sparklepony*

                If I were Kathy and people didn’t tell me, I’d be upset. This isn’t info to sit on. There is a teen girl at risk here.

                Reply ↓
          3. KJC*

            I did not read the comment “it had to be reported” as the poster saying the letter writer has the legal obligation of a mandated reporter. I interpreted it as saying the letter writer has a personal moral obligation to tell the parent. “Mandated reporter” is a legal concept that has only marginal significance here. What we are talking about here is our personal responsibilities to children and each other. And I completely agree with the sentiment that this information is ethically and morally essential to tell the parent IMMEDIATELY. If I found out someone KNEW my child was spending time with a sex offender and didn’t tell me because they thought they weren’t legally obligated to, I would be LIVID. Sex offender recidivism is quite high, and pedophilia is notoriously resistant to treatment. People who are trying not to reoffend DO NOT spend any time with children, and having attended training with therapists who work in this field, they specifically told us that the person should not even be in settings where children are present in an audience, if possible. The parent needs to know, immediately, period.

            Reply ↓
          4. Annie Says She's Okay*

            You shouldn’t have to be a mandated reporter to feel like it’s your responsibility to report when a child is possibly in danger.

            Reply ↓
        3. Dust Bunny*

          I’m in an “everyone is a mandatory reporter” state. This doesn’t sound like it meets the threshhold because abuse hasn’t occurred, but I would absolutely notify his PO. (And I rather think I’d report, anyway, just in case, because I have to live with myself.)

          Reply ↓
          1. academic fashion*

            I am a mandatory reporter by profession, but frankly, even if I weren’t, I would skip straight to reporting, and let the professionals sort out whether to do anything about it and if so, what. I would rather err on the side of protecting those who are vulnerable, even if it comes at the cost of workplace relationships; than futz about trying to determine if this is reportable and learn later on I’d made the wrong call.

            Reply ↓
            1. Orv*

              I’d be leery because, at last where I am, failure to report AND making a false report are both punishable. Mandatory reporters are sort of caught in between which is why I know a few who just try to avoid being around children.

              Reply ↓
              2. Orora*

                At least in my state, you’re only a mandatory reporter if you come across suggested child abuse in the course of your professional duties. I work in higher ed, so if I encountered a minor in a class that I suspected was being abused, I’d have to report it, but if it’s a neighbor child that I see playing in their backyard, I’m not legally obligated to. My moral obligations may differ, however.

                Reply ↓
              3. Jennifer Strange*

                Certainly there is a difference between making a report that is found to either be incorrect or doesn’t have enough evidence to move forwward, and making a report that you know is false? Otherwise no one can report anything because there’s always a chance it will be deemed “false”, even if the person reporting is correct.

                Reply ↓
                1. KJC*

                  If you provide honest information based on what you have been told, and clearly communicate where you heard it from, that is not a false report.

                  All that said, none of this matters if the OP just tells the mother, like she should. That is not a legal report. It’s a decent human being doing the right thing to tell another human being how to protect a child. And it needs to happen immediately.

        4. Learn ALL the things*

          I feel the same. If LW is in a country that has an official registry like the US, you can see what an offender’s restrictions are supposed to be and report if you know that they are not following those restrictions. If Jerry is not permitted to be within a certain distance of children, it would be reasonable to report him for violating that restriction.

          Reply ↓
          1. HB*

            I think each state is different. I just looked up the registry for North Carolina and there’s very little information. There’s also nothing about restrictions – either on an offender’s page or even in the FAQ. I had to find them by looking up the General Statutes.

            Reply ↓
    3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Very much not a great sign. Sally may not know his conditions, but he sure does. The fact he is ignoring them shows he doesn’t care, thinks he is safe and is likely to reoffend.

      This is a speak up today situation. Do not wait.

      Reply ↓
      1. New Jack Karyn*

        He could be off parole, but still on the sex offender registry. Heck, in some states, he could be no longer on the registry. In any case, OP ought to tell Kathy.

        Reply ↓
    5. Not on board*

      My thoughts exactly – isn’t this a violation of parole, or if not parole, the conditions of being a registered sex offender? And this doesn’t say great things about Sally that she’s allowing her sister to be around this guy. Screw Sally and report this to the relevant authorities and let them handle it.

      Reply ↓
    6. Hamster Manager*

      I worked with one once, and he was very smooth and a fast-talker (your classic charming narcissist), so while I really really reeeeeally side-eye Sally here, I can see how she could be taken in by him and think it’s not so bad to have her sister around him.

      Spoiler: Mine disappeared from work one day because he re-offended and went back to jail. Tell the mom.

      Reply ↓
    7. Dragon_Dreamer*

      Not to mention that if someone reports the situation to CPS, this IS a situation where they will take the child away immediately.

      Reply ↓
  3. The Original K.*

    I wonder if it’s a violation of Jerry’s parole to be in contact with kids? I know in some cases, sex offenders can’t be within x feet of kids (e.g. can’t live within x feet of a school).

    Reply ↓
    1. Orora*

      Living within a certain distance of a school is a different thing that just being in the presence of a minor. I don’t think it’s like a restraining order where you can’t get within 100 feet of a specific person. Children are everywhere in our society: stores, restaurants, parks, etc. Trying to stay 100 feet away from all kids at all times is nearly impossible if you ever leave your house.

      (Please note: I am not saying that Jerry should be hanging out with kids.)

      Reply ↓
  4. I want my voting sticker*

    Sally can say, ‘Oh sure – I told her.’ but really didn’t. Beth needs to tell her, as much as that’s going to blow up the friendship.

    Reply ↓
    2. Beth*

      I think LW should just tell Kathy herself. I understand the instinct to push Beth or Sally to disclose it, but if they wanted to (or felt morally obligated to) do so, they would’ve done it already. I think it’s better to just go ahead and share the info directly. It’ll be unfortunate if Sally blames Beth, but 1) that’s not in LW’s control, and 2) in a way, Beth being able to truthfully say she didn’t have anything to do with it might be easier on her.

      LW could find a way to share the info anonymously, or could pull Kathy aside for a quick “Sorry, I know this is awkward, but I learned this info and given the potential safety concern I felt like I had to make sure you’re in the loop” type conversation. Personally I wouldn’t handle this over text–it’s so easy to lose tone in short written messages, and there’s a lot of room here for various people to feel shame, judgment, and/or defensiveness.

      Reply ↓
      1. ChattyDelle*

        if Beth is hesitant to tell Kathy. then LW should. Kathy needs to know, to make an informed decision about allowing Lucy to go to Sally’s. This also gives Beth deniability. if she needs it – “I didn’t tell Kathy!”

        But Lucy’s safety comes before everything

        Reply ↓
      2. Hush42*

        Beth has plausible deniability anyway, assuming that Sally has told anyone else about Jerry at all. Not that he’s a pedophile but that they’re dating. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I have several co-workers who would immediately google a person I was dating were I to tell them. So if Sally is telling people about her new boyfriend Jerry it’s not at all improbable that someone googled him. This means that LW could leave Beth out of the story altogether and just tell Kathy (or tell her anonymously if they really want to). If questioned just say that you googled him and came up with that information.

        For what it’s worth I know people who have found out concerning information about relatively new partners because a friend did a google search and found off information. Nothing to the level of this situation but it wouldn’t be all that strange for people around Sally to find out that way.

        Reply ↓
      3. Hamster Manager*

        I had an actual panic attack when I discovered my new coworker was a convicted PDF file, and I don’t even have kids. Something text-based may be a kindness so she can react however she will in private.

        Reply ↓
    3. Ellie*

      Well if that’s the case, then Sally can’t be upset if OP talks it over with Kathy then, since she already knows. It might be a bit of an awkward conversation, but its well worth having.

      Reply ↓
  5. WorkerDrone*

    Personally, since it sounds like you have verified that this is 100% the guy in question and 100% that he was convicted of the crime in question, I believe you should not wait or waste the time going to Beth. I would tell Kathy immediately.

    Who knows if the day or two between talking to Beth and any action being taken to tell Kathy (if she even tells Kathy) would be a time the child is potentially in danger. When you’re talking about the potential for a child to be abused, I think action should be taken as soon as humanly possible – literally right now (again, assuming that you are 100% sure about your information – if you’re not, then that is the first priority).

    Drama would be unfortunate, but a child being abused would be catastrophic. Take the drama if it comes as the cost of protecting a child.

    Reply ↓
    1. ferrina*

      100% this.

      This is something that needs to be shared with Kathy immediately. She needs to know who she is leaving her kid with so she can make an informed decision. Sally is withholding critical information from her.

      Will Sally shoot the messenger? Probably. But she knows that she’s in the wrong- she knows that she’s hiding information that Kathy would want and that directly impacts how Kathy is caring for her child. That’s a really shitty thing to do. Sally is 100% in the wrong here, even if she tries to create fake drama to distract from her bad behavior.

      Reply ↓
        2. CityMouse*

          I think a lot of people are in serious denial until they are confronted with facts. We had this case I don’t want to give too many details on, but involved really horrific facts. We had a hearing where we were putting up video and autopsy photos. And something that struck me was that the defendant’s wife who’d been there to support him started crying. I think she’d been in denial about what he did until she saw the video and pictures.

          Reply ↓
          1. Elizabeth West*

            Some offenders are not only accomplished liars, but REALLY REALLY GOOD at compartmentalization. This makes it easier to hide activities from a partner or spouse and also to avoid acting in a way that would make them suspicious.

            Reply ↓
        3. Boof*

          I had an internet friend (with young daughters!) who started dating a convicted pedophile, and then I read about it back in the livejournal days (so, dating things a bit!)
          It was… perplexing but they were a really normal person, just really lonely and they really clicked with the guy. And at the time at least it was mostly long distance/online and their daughters weren’t around the guy at all and she said he was very careful to keep it that way, he’d been in therapy for a long time… almost like a recovering alcoholic. So IDK, somehow her heart/hormones felt like they were THE ONE and all the baggage that comes with dating someone like that, even someone in recovery etc, didn’t but a damper on it. I guess it’s much like why anyone else dates someone who has some serious issues (prior violence, prior addiction, etc) – either they’re just that lonely or they’re in denial about what happened (ie, oh the other people made them do it, it was a false accusation, it’ll be different with me, etc) or they’re convinced it’s behind them… but yeah, weird.

          Reply ↓
          1. Worldwalker*

            Remember that there are women who have married serial killers who have been sentenced to life without parole — or are actually on death row.

            And a much larger number who get involved with men (or sometimes women) convicted of domestic violence, and then act surprised when they become the next victim.

            I don’t get it either.

            Reply ↓
            1. Boof*

              I can’t say I’ve ever made a study of it (and yeah, sometimes i get really interested in trying to understand random topics that confuse or disquiet me because that’s just how I deal with things) but my guess with some of the first category (marrying folks who are incarcerated for life) is there’s something that just feels “safe” about that amount of rules around a relationship – well as nabokov said there’s always a different reason to do something broken (paraphrasing) – but the latter are the ones who do leave me really scratching my head. Pretty sure it’s just that abusers know how to be charming and isolate victims and make them think they’re special/different until they start wearing them down. :(

              Reply ↓
            2. Ellie*

              And lets not forget the poor catfish targets… women and men who send strangers thousands of dollars because they are convinced that they’ve found something real. And those who get involved with married men, and women. The human heart can ignore all sorts of things.

              I don’t know. I’m guessing that some of the women know what they’ve done and don’t care, or are just as bad. Others might have some kind of saviour complex, and yet others are genuinely deluded. Whatever it is, someone’s got to protect that child, if she won’t.

              Reply ↓
        4. Ellis Bell*

          Someone with poor judgement. Poor enough that I wouldn’t trust her to find the words or “the right moment” with her mother, or to protect her sister if she has to choose between leaving her alone with her boyfriend or upsetting said boyfriend. I would bypass her entirely and if she confronted me later: “Of course I had assumed you had probably already told her, but if you hadn’t I wasn’t going to be the one who dropped the ball on a kid’s safety.”

          Reply ↓
        5. sparkle emoji*

          IME, people convicted of violent crimes often obfuscate and are good at it. If Sally doesn’t understand the details of the legal system and she wants to trust this guy who is trying to trick her, I can see her thinking that whatever his crime was “wasn’t that bad” or some other rationalization. Not saying I support the decisions Sally is making, but I can imagine how they happen.

          Reply ↓
        6. RagingADHD*

          Exactly the kind of person that predators seek out and select for – vulnerable, naive, with weak or confused personal boundaries, and with unfettered contact to potential future victims.

          Ongoing predation doesn’t work without a system of enablers, and the fact that Sally is keeping this secret and allowing contact with her younger sister sounds like she is well into enabler mode.

          Reply ↓
        8. goddessoftransitory*

          Usually one who has been brought up in that kind of environment, has very low self esteem, is very trusting, and/or any combination of those three things.

          Most pedophiles specifically seek out women with certain backgrounds, bearings, and personality traits in order to gain access to kids that said women have contact with.

          Believe me, they don’t slime up drooling and ask the mark to dress in a pinafore and pigtail their hair or whatever–they’re charming, understanding, a good listener. They totally GET her; they “feel a connection they didn’t think was possible,” and so on. Their goal is to get the woman dependent on the relationship before making any move towards their real goal. They have good reason to be cautious and make sure the woman is good and hooked.

          Reply ↓
        9. applesandoranges*

          Someone either foolish enough to believe whatever ridiculous excuse he told her about his conviction. Naive enough to believe he’s changed.

          Or utterly monstrous enough to think her sisters’ life and safety are a fair trade for dating the man she wants

          Reply ↓
    3. tinyhipsterboy*

      Absolutely. It might cause fallout, especially if Jerry has improved himself or the conviction was iffy, but the fact of the matter is, there’s a child’s wellbeing at stake here. That’s more important than getting Sally mad at you.

      Reply ↓
    7. allathian*

      Yes, absolutely report it immediately. Kathy needs to know that Sally’s sister isn’t safe to leave with *Sally* who seems unwilling to ensure her sister’s safety, never mind the boyfriend.

      Reply ↓
      1. ferrina*

        OP shouldn’t wait for Beth; OP should tell.

        Given Beth’s hesitation, I would be concerned that Beth would claim she said something when she didn’t. That’s not something I would want to leave up to error- I would want to say something myself.

        Reply ↓
  7. RandomLawyer*

    There are some things that trump “I want a harmonious workplace.” Protecting a kid from a pedophile is definitely one of them.

    Reply ↓
    1. Pippa K*

      This could have been the whole answer to the original question. If you find yourself weighing “reporting a pedophile who is spending time with a child” against “some social tension in the break room at work” then you need to do these things:
      1. Report the pedophile – inform the child’s mother, then possibly relevant authorities depending on circumstances
      2. Remember that if there’s a blowup at work and Sally makes it awkward, she’s the one dating a pedophile and allowing him to be around her sister, so she’s not got the high ground here
      3. Maybe have a think about why you were reluctant to make what seems like a clear moral call here

      Reply ↓
      1. Walk on the Left Side*

        I want to preface this by saying, I 100% agree with the “you need to tell Kathy” group.

        That said, I think your summary of “some social tension in the break room at work” might be an understatement. We don’t know from the details given whether this level of alienating Beth or Sally could have repercussions that would truly impact the OP e.g. causing them to lose their job, and whether that would bring harm to their own family.

        I think protecting the kid by informing Kathy is absolutely right, but I don’t want to completely hand-wave away the possibility that the consequences for OP could easily be more than just a little awkwardness.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rainy*

          I understand your point, but I also don’t think that “repercussions that would truly impact the OP” are a good reason to let a child continue to be endangered. OP can get a new job, even if it’s difficult or time-consuming.

          The child doesn’t have the capability to remove herself from the situation of being forced or pressured by her family members to be around someone who is a danger to her. The most vulnerable person in this situation is the child, and her needs and rights are paramount.

          Reply ↓
          1. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

            Yep. Anything else is a calculated choice to put a child at risk of sexual assault so as not to put yourself at risk of having to find another job. Put like that, do you really have a choice here?

            Reply ↓
      2. Cmdrshprd*

        “3. Maybe have a think about why you were reluctant to make what seems like a clear moral call here”

        I think that is a complete misunderstanding of OP’s letter/situation. They are not asking if they should report it, they are asking for advice on the best way to move forward with reporting and to minimize issues in the work place. Is not “should I report.” but rather how do I go about reporting this in the best way possible. Asking for advice on something like this and wanting to try and minimize the issues at work is totally understandable. A situation like this calls for precision rather than blindly rushing forward.

        Per OP:

        “Morally, I feel obligated to tell Kathy about Jerry’s conviction, but I don’t want the fallout to affect the workplace……..What would you suggest to protect the child, while also avoiding as much workplace drama as possible?”

        Reply ↓
        1. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

          “What would you suggest to protect the child, while also avoiding as much workplace drama as possible?”

          Said it elsewhere but I’ll repeat it here. Create an anonymous account on social media and send the link to the registry site anonymously to Kathy that way. Or print out the page and leave it on her desk.

          There’s all kinds of ways to get info to someone without revealing yourself as the source.

          But really, why bother with anonymity? Just tell her directly.

          If you’re concern is about office awkwardness, think of what happens if Lucy is harmed and Kathy finds out that everyone in the office EXCEPT her knew of the risk and didn’t say anything.

          Reply ↓
      3. Boof*

        Regarding #3, I will just say when people are faced with what, in hindsight, is kind of obvious but is also an entirely new situation to them, it can take a bit to get to the obvious conclusion. Like when you see a car at the side of the road it can take a minute to flip from “doot de doo driving driving driving” to “wait, do they need help? Should I stop? Now they’re already a ways back do I turn around???”

        Reply ↓
  8. Melly Belly*

    I’m generally a big believer in not involving yourself in others relationship mess and on giving those convicted who have served their time a second chance. But. (Big old but here!) We have a convicted pedophile in contact with a child. Absolutely not. If Beth won’t tell Kathy, LW, you must.

    Reply ↓
    1. Kat*

      Just wanted to add that in line with your view of giving people who’ve served their time a second chance: one can absolutely believe in giving someone a second chance while ALSO making the decision FOR THEIR OWN CHILD, that their child should not be left around a convicted pedophile. Giving someone a second chance does not equate to giving them access to more victims. Second chances IMO is about opportunities for employment and housing and safety.

      Second chances doesn’t guarantee someone the right to relationships with people that were in their victim pool.
      People defending convicts can become quite gaslighty in their arguments that veer away from second chance and more towards erasing the past and pretending it’s erased by time served.

      Reply ↓
      1. ThursdaysGeek*

        We have someone convicted of molesting a child (teen) attending our church. He has done whatever was required of him legally and is no longer even on the list. Nonetheless, everyone in the church with kids has been contacted, he’s not allowed to attend home groups without permission, he’s not in leadership, people who are aware are always keeping an eye out during the times he is there. Not everyone knows – he’s not being publicly shamed. He is welcome. But we NEVER want it to happen again by us not paying attention.

        Reply ↓
        2. Lizy*

          Yeah that’s a really good way of handling it.

          We’re in the middle of 1 Cor and basically talking about holding other Christians accountable and where the line is and… this really is a great example. Assuming it’s ok with you, I’m going to “steal” it as an example :)

          Reply ↓
      2. Boof*

        Imagine an alcoholic in recovery – doesn’t matter how long one is sober for, should still avoid alcohol! I can only imagine the last thing a truly recovered convicted pedophile would want would be to open themselves to liability of being around minors unsupervised!!!

        Reply ↓
    2. Media Monkey*

      agreed – if Sally didn’t think this would be an issue for Kathy, why hasn’t she told her? Clearly because it is a big deal.

      Reply ↓
  9. Juicebox Hero*

    When it comes to adults, I’m strictly MYOB. With a child involved, that changes everything. Beth might be afraid of losing Sally’s friendship and blowing up their living situation, but would she be able to live with herself if something happened to Lucy?

    Sally might be thinking that it’s safe to have Lucy over because she’s there to keep an eye on her, but if the boyfriend wants to victimize Lucy he’ll find a way to do it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Worldwalker*

      Remember that the vast majority of child molesters are family members (especially boyfriends), friends of the family, and people like sports coaches and youth group leaders. They have the opportunity.

      Reply ↓
      1. iglwif*

        Yes! THIS situation is the kind people should be worried about, not “random paedophiles grabbing kids off the street”.

        I would tell Kathy.

        Reply ↓
    2. Lacey*

      100%

      People don’t realize that skilled predators can even get away with molesting children while in conversation with other adults in the room. Part of what a predator enjoys is that they’re fooling everyone around them.

      Reply ↓
      1. Learn ALL the things*

        Exactly. Larry Nassar, the doctor who used to treat a lot of US gymnasts, was convicted for molesting hundreds of girls, and most of those girls’ mothers were in the room while it was happening.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lacey*

          Yes, he’s probably the most famous example.

          And people may think, “Ok, but that’s a different circumstance” but I know several women who were molested by family members while other people were around. It feeds these guys egos and it makes the kid feel trapped.

          Reply ↓
        2. Elizabeth West*

          I read a whole article just the other day about another doctor who did this exact same thing to underage patients (he was a PCP, I think).

          Reply ↓
      2. V*

        Yes, absolutely. This is pretty much exactly what happened with the person in my family. He was apparently brazen enough to do it at family gatherings with tons of other people around and nobody noticed. By the time I came around, the adults very carefully made sure I was never seated next to him or left alone with him for even a moment.

        Reply ↓
          1. Worldwalker*

            Because “fah-mully.”

            I know of someone whose family only stopped inviting him when he was sent to prison for murdering his own son. He’s a very distant in-law (I’ve never met him) but he was known to be a scumbag long before this. But … “family.”

            Reply ↓
    3. ferrina*

      Yes yes yes.

      Beth and Sally are prioritizing the wrong things. They are prioritizing the adults’ friendships and love lives over the safety of a child. OP, do not prioritize “harmony” over the safety of a child. If a child is in danger, speak up.

      If the boyfriend is truly a good guy, he will understand the concern. He will talk to the right people and take the right steps to prove he is trustworthy (including steps like “not be alone with children” and “give children as much distance as possible without actually being in the next zip code”). If a trustworthy person knows you have valid concerns, they will accept the boundaries. If they are pushing the boundaries, they are not trustworthy. If they tell you to “trust them” or make this about “you make me feel like a criminal”, then they are prioritizing their ego and their comfort over your very reasonable concern about a child’s safety. They are not a good person.

      Reply ↓
      1. Elizabeth West*

        If he’s been around this kid and hasn’t already removed himself, then sorry, but I don’t think he’s trustworthy.

        Reply ↓
  10. Ashley*

    Depending on your state the rules for mandatory reporter can be strict. For example if you volunteer at church or with your kids school that can make you a mandatory reporter in all areas of your life and not just those activities. This does give you standing to say something to the mom, but it also requires you to call child protective services.
    Office drama should take a back seat to the safety of a child.

    Reply ↓
    2. Beth*

      We really don’t know anything that suggests LW is a mandatory reporter. They should say something on the grounds of it being the obvious right thing to do; they don’t need either the obligation or the standing of being a mandatory reporter to do it.

      Reply ↓
    3. zinzarin*

      Mandatory reporting only kicks in when abuse has occurred. Nothing in OP’s letter would trigger mandatory reporting.

      Things are suspicious, but nobody knows that anything has actually happened, so nothing is mandatory. Sensible, sure, but not mandatory.

      Reply ↓
      1. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

        Mandatory reporting laws vary so widely by state that I’d be wary of any blanket statements like “…only kicks in when abuse has occurred.” In some states it’s required to report any concerns or suspicions, even weak ones, and let the professionals make the call as to how serious it is and what to do about it. A report of a concern isn’t a direct accusation with evidence and it isn’t intended to be. It’s intended to be an additional warning system for all those cases that agencies would otherwise never know about.

        Reply ↓
    4. EngineeringFun*

      I’m a mandatory reporter. I would have to report it asap. I work with kids on the weekend! My training suggested that There could be grooming activity going on here!

      Reply ↓
      1. AnonRN*

        I’m a mandated reporter and in my US state this would not fall within the scope of my mandated reporting unless I was working as a nurse *with* these people and specifically with the child. My state is specific about the fact that mandated reporters are *not* required to report every concern they may encounter, just those they encounter while directly doing their job. Additionally, we’re only mandated to report suspected abuse by someone who is in a parental/responsible role over the child, which probably does not include Jerry unless we know for certain he is left alone and responsible for Kathy’s child.

        We can absolutely make a “concerned citizen’s” report but just wanting to point out that MR laws aren’t the same everywhere so a given person may (or may not) be legally required to take the same action in every state.

        Reply ↓
  11. Czech Mate*

    Is this something HR can be looped in on? I know it involves folks who don’t work with OP and the meetings are happening off-premises, but could OP bring it up to HR and say, “I have good reason to believe that Sally is putting Kathy’s daughter in a potentially dangerous position, and I would feel irresponsible not bringing it up here. Are there any reporting obligations here? Is there anything we can do to ensure that the partner of one employee doesn’t harm the child of another?”

    Reply ↓
    1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      this isn’t HR territory — yet. If Sally acts out because her mother finds out she is dating a pedophile then its a work issue. But right now, not a work problem.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sneaky Squirrel*

      I don’t know what HR could do here. If there’s any actionable items with reporting it to a parole officer or police authority, LW could do that themselves. By reporting it to HR, LW would just be passing the buck on sharing the information with Kathy by foisting it onto HR who would then only have the information third-hand.

      Reply ↓
    3. Madame Desmortes*

      One concern I would have is company-sponsored kids-of-employees-can-come events like picnics or parties or volunteer days or the like. Pretty sure HR will want to ensure he does not attend.

      Reply ↓
  12. Khollis*

    I would need to know more. Is it a conviction from when he was 20 and dated a 17 year old and her parents were angry? The charges matter to me here. If it’s more than that, Kathy needs to know.

    Reply ↓
    1. Annon for this one*

      This so much, a similar incident happend in a family I know, and even though the parties involved ended up marrying the instant the girl turned 18, and are complety sane and happy, it is still ruining their lives. The girl’s parents just reported them for allowing him to live with a minor, which is their own baby boy, and these same people are spitting nails that now they are being cut off from “their precious Grandson”

      Reply ↓
      1. ferrina*

        I’m sorry for your friend. Sounds like they made a mistake, and the toxic family jumped on it. I’ve got my own toxic family members, and they will jump on whatever they can (then be utterly shocked when you go NC)

        This is different. In this case, the parent whose child is spending time with the convicted person is deliberately being kept in the dark. The parent is not getting critical information- Kathy is inherently trusting Sally because Sally is her daughter.

        Best case scenario, Sally is making a mistake because she is young and afraid of the consequences and it really is a minor conviction. If that’s true and Kathy is a reasonable person, it will be okay. It will be a bumpy road and the trust will never be fully restored. But Kathy will be able to get the full information, make an informed decisions, and Sally will learn that she needs to share critical information as needed* or risk people learning the wrong way. *for example, boyfriend should not be chaperoning the church youth group retreat or hosting sleepovers. Even the appearance of impropriety needs to be avoided, and that is his lot now.

        Worst case scenario, the conviction was for something worse. Sally knows, and is hiding it from Kathy despite knowing the risks to Kathy’s tween daughter (Sally’s tween sister). It’s an absolutely horrible thought, but it happens all the time.

        In the absence of other information, OP needs to tell Kathy. Immediately.
        If I found out that someone was a convicted pedophile and they were babysitting my kids and no one told me, I would go scorched earth. If they were upfront about it when I met them, yes, I would put rules around the interactions with my child. Yes, they wouldn’t be allowed to babysit. But they would be allowed to stay in our lives.

        Reply ↓
    2. Msd*

      I agree. There are several groups that are working to improve how sex offenders are treated especially around the registry. What the guy actually did is important.

      Reply ↓
    3. RabbitRabbit*

      I’m sure this varies but generally you can find the category of conviction on your state’s registry page. My state goes into detail like how many counts they are convicted under, stuff like if it’s having/making sexual abuse materials of a child (and how old the child was), if it’s assault what type it is (victim incapable of consenting, force used, age difference, etc.).

      Reply ↓
      1. Lacey*

        Yup. In my state you can see exactly what the conviction is for, so there’s no guesswork.

        I’d also remind people that it’s really hard to get a conviction for any kind of sexual abuse crime and that sentencing is often lenient.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lizy*

          Can we please refrain from sweeping generalizations?

          I’ve been on/seen both sides, and unfortunately circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome. 2 of the cases I’ve been involved in personally had completely different outcomes — if I remember right, one was past the statue of limitations, but honestly nothing probably would have been done anyhow given the people involved. I’m almost certain the person went on to harm others. The other was the absolute wrong outcome and ended up with the accuser (correctly) recanting but basically being forced to go through with it anyhow. The “abuser” will have to live with punishment forever. The accuser gets to go around and continue to be a drain on society.

          Don’t get me wrong – I am 100% for victim’s rights. All I’m saying is that the system is broken, in more ways than one, and we should keep that in mind. I think it’s very different to tell Kathy “hey not sure if you knew but I found this. I don’t know any details but wanted to give you a heads up”, verse “hey this person is a pedo and you better keep your kid away because you never know what crap he’s gonna do”.

          Reply ↓
          1. Starbuck*

            “All I’m saying is that the system is broken, in more ways than one”

            Sure, but we have pretty good evidence that the breakage is a LOT more extreme on one end than the other. The number of rapists and predators who walk free is far, far greater than the number of wrongly convicted, by a couple orders of magnitude.

            Reply ↓
      2. NotRealAnonForThis*

        My state’s does this as well. It’s pretty clear right away if it was a “Romeo and Juliet” situation or not.

        Reply ↓
      3. 2 Cents*

        Yep, in my state, you can see what the crime was too, in general terms. The man who moved in near my parents, who’s been very pleasant to them and vice versa, has a conviction for fondling a small child (his family member, btw). You can bet my small child isn’t around him ever.

        Reply ↓
    4. CityMouse*

      No. Someone says “pedophile” (which usually does not indicate those situations), you 100% err on the side of reporting. Let the parent do the investigating.

      Reply ↓
    5. Princess Pumpkin Spice*

      I do agree with this. I think – rightfully – the gut reaction to legal pedophilia is outrage. Sometimes it is more nuanced than that.

      Regardless, I think OP should speak up. I’d rather Kathy and Jerry have an awkward convo – ” I was 18 and she was 16 with very strict parents” than have something tragic happen to a child.

      Reply ↓
      1. CityMouse*

        Also imagine if you’re Kathy and you find out your coworkers all knew this and decided not to tell you. Don’t take away Kathy’s agency and make a parenting decision for her.

        Reply ↓
      2. ferrina*

        If it’s something innocuous, why is Sally hiding it from Kathy? Why not sit down with Kathy and say “look, my boyfriend has a conviction, and this is what it’s for. Here’s the court records. He’s here to answer any questions. I want to tell you this now so that you have all the information.”

        Assuming it is innocuous, Kathy still deserves to know so she knows who she is leaving her child with. Right now she is inherently trusting Sally’s word because Sally is her daughter; Sally is abusing that trust to hide information that would impact Kathy’s choices regarding the tween daughter.

        This is very different than sharing unrelated information with a bystander- this is sharing very pertinent information with someone that is repeatedly leaving their child in close contact with this person.

        Reply ↓
    6. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Okay, if that is the case then Sally can tell her mother. If its not a big deal it can all be explained.

      His crimes might not be that bad does not excuse the fact that Mom has a right to know that her younger daughter is around someone on the sex offender registry. Then Mom can make the decision if she is okay with that or not.

      Reply ↓
    7. learnedthehardway*

      I can sympathize with this point of view, but unless the OP is able to look up and postively determine the nature of the charges laid was like you suggested (ie. a 20 yr old with a 17 yr old relationship), I think the parent should be informed.

      The parent has a right to know this information, and the fact that her sister has hidden it from her is very troubling.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dahlia*

        OP says in the post they’ve looked up this guy’s record.

        “I considered texting a screenshot of his public record to Kathy from a fake phone number.”

        Reply ↓
    8. Not all conversations*

      I’ve hung out at various places on the internet over the last couple decades, and it’s strange – in any discussion about child sexual abuse, the conversation so, so often turns to how unfair sex offender laws are about Romeo and Juliet cases. I’ve seen a conversation about a father who locked up his underage daughter for years to abuse at his leisure turn to the difficulties teens must experience when sexting each other. It’s not every time, no. But it’s so, so consistent. I can’t help but think about this, every time.

      Reply ↓
      2. allathian*

        Yeah, this. I mean I think that Romeo and Juliet cases should be expunged from the records, and certainly in cases where the couple gets married as soon as it’s legal and remains apparently happily married for years afterwards, at least as long as the age difference is less than 5 years. (I think that a 25 year old dating an 18 year old, while technically legal, is more predatory than an 18 year old dating a 16 year old. They certainly aren’t looking for a relationship of equals.)

        But we don’t know that this was a Romeo and Juliet case, and for the sake of this discussion I’m assuming it isn’t.

        Reply ↓
        1. Ellie*

          Even the name, Romeo and Juliet, is misleading. Romeo was 19 years old, chasing after a 13 year old, and they both ended up dead. I mean, really?

          Reply ↓
        2. Media Monkey*

          sounds like an opportunity to force marriage on someone who has already been abused? not in all cases but in some.

          Reply ↓
    9. Elizabeth West*

      OP says she saw the record, and if she is concerned about it, then my guess is that it’s more serious than that. Either way, Kathy needs to know so she can make an informed decision about her daughter’s safety.

      Reply ↓
    10. ElliottRook*

      A valid point, but I doubt LW would have concerns for Lucy or written in if it was a case like that. Also in that case Sally’s framing should be more like “hey, if you google my guy, this will come up but what actually happened was xyz, so I don’t want you to be alarmed,” but again–LW’s looked at the record in this case and I don’t think there would be a letter at all if that was what was going on.

      I have a close friend whose boyfriend has a very distinct name and if you google him, a very alarming-sounding crime comes up–but it happened when he was struggling more with addiction, and he’s now been sober for several years. Context does matter! He got help and got his issues under control before he went out looking to date again. But when the context is child safety there’s zero room for error.

      Reply ↓
  13. Aeryn*

    I read stuff like this and I just think, “C’mon ladies…..a convicted pedophile is the best you can do in the dating pool?” Ughhhhhhh……. Yes, go to Kathy immediately since Sally has a major blind spot to this whole situation with her younger sister. Waiting for Beth to say something is absolutely useless at this point.

    Reply ↓
    1. CityMouse*

      I worked for a judge I can tell and the stories I could tell… We once had to call CPS on a woman who requested we list the stayaway order so she could date the guy who was convicted of assaulting her daughter when he was released from prison (also got his probation revoked, thank goodness).

      Reply ↓
      1. Ultimate Facepalm*

        Horrific.
        As I understand it, Pedophiles don’t change. It’s not something you can resolve with behaviral therapy or medication from what I hear anyway.

        Reply ↓
        1. Worldwalker*

          It’s a lot more nuanced than that. Like anything else, some people will change their behavior, some people won’t. And what that behavior is — molesting toddlers or dating a girl a few years younger in HS — also matters. Dating someone 3 years younger than you when you’re 18 is a crime; doing so when you’re 21 is not. The guy molesting toddlers is a major threat and less likely to change. The guy who turned 18 when his HS girlfriend was 15 is not. But we label them both “pedophile.”

          Reply ↓
          2. Lenora Rose*

            It’s *rarely* a lot more nuanced than that. Romeo-just-turned-18 and Juliet situations do happen, but are rare*, and if the OP could see him on the registry she could probably see if it was one of those.

            More, though, it’s not OP’s job to parse the nuance, it’s Kathy’s, because she has the kid in danger. But Kathy can’t do that job if not told.

            *I know of two. In one, it was a lesbian relationship. In the other, the older boyfriend was black and the gf was white. IOW, more was going on in the parents’ dislike for the partner than just age.

            Reply ↓
      2. Ellie*

        There was a girl at my high school, 14 years old, who had to go on government assistance, move out on her own, in a flat, because her mum’s new boyfriend was a convicted pedophile, and was not allowed around the daughter. Mum chose to have the new boyfriend move in with her, so that was their solution. It boggles the mind.

        Honestly though… she did OK. She was probably better off.

        Reply ↓
    2. The Original K.*

      I had a similar thought – I know dating is rough. I’m a woman who only dates men and in 2024, the dating scene is bad. (I just deleted my dating app profiles.) But … she’d rather date a pedophile than be single? Seriously?

      Reply ↓
    3. Texan In Exile*

      People from a friend’s church tried to set her up. My friend is beautiful and kind and accomplished and warm and interesting and a real catch.

      The church people insisted this man was great for Friend, but finally told Friend he was a convicted child molester.

      She told them no and wondered why they thought she was so desperate she could consider a child molester.

      “Well he’s praying about it,” they told her.

      Reply ↓
    4. Janeway, Her Coffee In Hand*

      Unfortunately, love can be blind and stupid. My best friend married a convicted pedophile and remains married to him even after he’s reoffended and been sent to jail. It disgusts me. I’ve told her many times she deserves better than him. She still won’t leave him. At least they don’t have kids.

      Reply ↓
    5. goddessoftransitory*

      Some women really do think this, heartbreakingly enough. A pedophile can target someone with this kind of low self worth like a heat seeking missile and make sure she thinks he is her one and only chance ever at love or intimacy. By the time he moves in on the kids, he’s got her convinced that he’s not doing anything, she’s crazy, the kids are lying, why does she want to destroy him? and the rest of the spiel of lies.

      Reply ↓
  14. Not Tom, Just Petty*

    Wait. Sally is dating Jerry. Sally is Kathy’s daughter. Kathy’s daughter, Sally’s sister visits the apartment.
    Beth chose to tell OP.
    So, Beth wants to do the right thing, but is stuck in her lease. That sucks. It’s really crappy to live with someone who hates you because “you never do the dishes,” or “you ruined my relationship with my mom and my sister!”
    Someone needs to speak up for the sister.
    OP, I wish you luck and Beth, too.

    Reply ↓
  15. Anon4this*

    It’s an irrelevant point, but words matter: pedophilia is not illegal. So, he’s a convicted *sex offender* (or child molester), not a convicted pedophile.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ginger Cat Lady*

      Seriously? Pedantry is not helpful here, and pedophilia may not (under whatever *technicality* you think makes it okay enough that people need to be informed that it’s “different” somehow) be illegal, but it is certainly immoral, unethical, a problem, and a threat to children.
      Boggles my mine that you’re here making excuses for pedophilia under the guide of “words matter”
      Utter load of crap.

      Reply ↓
      1. A*

        Paedophilia is a psychological condition where the affected person is sexually attracted to children specifically. They may or may not offend against children. Most child sex offenders aren’t necessarily paedophiles, they’re just predators, and children are vulnerable. It of course doesn’t change the advice here but I don’t think it’s offensive to point out. Framing it as “making excuses for paedophilia” seems an unfairly bad-faith reading of Anon4this’s comment, given you clearly aren’t distinguishing the two things.

        Reply ↓
    2. fhqwhgads*

      He’s a convicted sex offender and the specific crime involved a minor. There? Better? Makes absolutely no difference to the clarity of the situation or the advice.

      Reply ↓
  16. Worldwalker*

    One nuance in this situation should be the nature of Jerry’s crimes.

    Was he an 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend a decade or more ago? Or was he convicted of assaulting tween girls as a camp counselor and just got out of prison? Neither is good, but the latter would be a lot more worrisome than the former. And the difference has some influence on the approach you should take. The assaults-at-camp situation would argue for telling Kathy right now and let the drama chips fall where they may. The underage-girlfriend one is far less urgent, since the situation is unlikely to recur^, so you have a lot more time. Since we haven’t been told any of the details, it’s hard to give valid advice here, since the advice is so dependent on what Jerry actually did.

    *My scenario here is that he and the girl were hanging out together since they were kindergarteners, it progressed to dating, and her parents had the cops on standby for the day he turned 18. I’m trying to devise the mildest scenario for this end of the spectrum. (and yes, this has happened)

    Reply ↓
    1. sgpb*

      This literally does not matter at all. No matter what his crime was, I would be LIVID if my tween was hanging out with a convicted sex offender.

      Reply ↓
      2. Czhorat*

        Agreed.

        There’s no certainty that something bad would happen, but there’s no certainty that it wouldn’t either. Given what the LW knows, there is an absolute moral obligation to speak up.

        The safety of the child supercedes the boyfriend’s right to privacy.

        Reply ↓
      3. Worldwalker*

        It does not matter if the person was convicted of molesting tween girls or if his long-time HS girlfriend’s parents were ready to pounce the day he turned 18?

        It matters to me. It matters to him. It should matter to a lot of people. One of those two is a significant and immediate threat. The other is not.

        Reply ↓
        1. ferrina*

          The thing is, OP doesn’t know which scenario it is. And in the absence of information, the risk is too high.

          It’s a nice thought that “Google and ye shall know”, but if OP doesn’t know the boyfriend’s name, that may not be an option. And there is a time consideration- OP knows that Kathy’s tween daughter is actively spending time with this guy (yes, theoretically Sally is there too, but Sally has already shown a lack of judgement, so it’s not inconceivable that she runs out to the store for a few minutes and assumes everything’s fine).

          As a parent, I would be livid if my tween kid was regularly hanging out with a convicted sex offender and no one told me. Those people would have burned all of my trust forever more. That’s deliberately hiding information that I would very much want to know about my child’s care. It doesn’t matter how mild the conviction ends up being- it’s the deception and hiding information that would burn the relationship.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dahlia*

            OP says, “I considered texting a screenshot of his public record to Kathy from a fake phone number.”

            So it seems they do know his name and his conviction.

            Reply ↓
        2. Oh please*

          This whole “but we don’t know what he DID” shtick is tired. People winding up on the sex offender registry for being 18 and dating a 16 year old isn’t as common as internet sex abuse apologists would have us believe. The majority of states have Romeo and Juliet laws that wouldn’t support charges in the scenario you described, and in the states that don’t have those laws it’s unlikely that the district attorney is going to use its resources to prosecute someone who’s in a relationship with a 2-year age gap. I’m sure it does happen occasionally, but nowhere near often enough for someone to assume that’s what happened and err on the side of not telling the parent of a minor child that her kid might be in danger. OP she’s seen his record; she knows what he was convicted of doing, and she calls him a pedophile. I’m inclined to take her at her word, which is what the site rules require.

          And really, the only reason people feel okay about posting this kind of specious argument is that society systematically undervalues the well-being of the women and girls who are likely to be victims of sex offenses while being very concerned about the reputations of the men who are likely to perpetrate them. Let’s stop doing that.

          Reply ↓
          1. Lenora Rose*

            “And really, the only reason people feel okay about posting this kind of specious argument is that society systematically undervalues the well-being of the women and girls who are likely to be victims of sex offenses while being very concerned about the reputations of the men who are likely to perpetrate them.”

            This, this, oh God, this. I just had to deal with someone saying that the lives of the women Neil Gaiman is now (fairly convincingly) shown to have ruined is unimportant because his books inspired millions. I’ve loved Gaiman’s work, but trying to picture holding up a book or movie and telling a woman “This is more important to me than your pain” is just … inconceivable.

            (And those were adult women, not children.)

            Reply ↓
        3. Llama Lamma Workplace Drama*

          No it doesn’t matter. The parent of the minor child has a right to know about it no matter which of those situations it is! Then the parent can decide from there what to do with the information.

          Reply ↓
    2. Richard Hershberger*

      I had this about ten years ago. A guy moved into the neighborhood and the rumors started flying. It was trivial to confirm he was indeed on the registry. It was only slightly more difficult to pull up the docket from the criminal case showing the offense was at the bad end of the range. All the kids knew to avoid that house, finding out why as they aged into understanding the issue.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rainy*

        Yup. There was a situation with someone in my first husband’s friend group many years ago. The person was Tier 3, had to check in with his probation officer regularly, and had not only started insinuating himself into friendships with people who had children of his preferred age and sex, he had worked to gain responsibilities in a hobby organization that would allow him access to young people.

        It was extremely easy to confirm all of this. In any state I’ve lived in, they don’t just put people on the SOR as a name without details like Santa’s naughty list. There is a lot of information because the whole point of the SOR is to enable people to protect themselves and their families from people who have been identified as a danger to others in very specific ways. And despite the conviction and probation and all the restrictions that he was not following, there were still a lot of people who refused to believe that someone they’d been friends with could have committed crimes against children. I immediately cut him off and I lost quite a few people that I’d thought were friends over it, but for me that was a bonus. I don’t want to be friends with people who harm children, and I also don’t want to be friends with people who trivialize crimes against children.

        Reply ↓
    3. Bex (in computers)*

      We’ve been told one detail, which is that the girlfriend refers to her boyfriend as a PEDOPHILE.

      Where’s your reasoning and nuance behind that?

      Reply ↓
      1. Kesnit*

        People use the word “pedophile” because that is the term that is commonly used. Would you know what someone meant if they said their S.O. is a convicted “hebephile” or “ephebophile?”

        Reply ↓
        1. Bex (in computers)*

          I would, yes. And I’d also be extremely concerned about someone telling me their SO is a person convicted of crimes who has a strong sexual attraction to early adolescents (11-14) or adolescents. Cause that’s not okay. It’s gross. Those are children (unless it’s the rare ephebophile who’s only attracted to 18-19 year olds).

          And whether they used pedophile, hebephile, or ephebophile, I sure as hell wouldn’t want my tween child hanging out at their apartment with their SO.

          Reply ↓
        3. Socks*

          I think someone who actually thought there were mitigating circumstances would just say what they are instead of labeling their boyfriend a pedophile or ephebophile.

          Reply ↓
    4. Ginger Cat Lady*

      Why are you making excuses for a pedophile? There’s no room for “nuance” when the safety of a minor is concerned.

      Reply ↓
    5. Ellie*

      Bah, doesn’t matter. I was out with my boyfriend and another couple and we were all in our early 20s. The other couple’s brother ends up joining us with his new 16 year old girlfriend. Frankly, she looked 13 and was completely out of her depth. We couldn’t go to the pub we’d planned to go to because she was underage – we had to go to a family restaurant instead. It ruined the evening. My boyfriend at the time was just as appalled as I was.

      Anyone over 18 who dates someone under 16 is a loser. I wouldn’t want them around my young relatives either.

      Reply ↓
    6. Elizabeth West*

      Child marriage is legal in 44 states. Does that make it okay to wed a 15-year-old? (And if anyone reading this thinks it’s okay with parental consent, kindly yeet yourself into the sun immediately.)

      There are men 40+ pursuing teenage girls, so there IS a risk. Kathy needs to be informed.

      Reply ↓
  17. Been there, reported that*

    I used to work with registered offenders in a different capacity. If his information is available to the public, so is his probation or parole officer’s information. You can report directly to them that he’s spending time with a minor. He probably had to register at the sherif’s department, you can tell them as well.

    Reply ↓
  18. Loose Socks*

    You can make an anonymous report to CPS (or whatever your state’s equivalent is). I would do it today. Right now. Don’t worry about talking to anyone in your workplace, if the report goes straight to CPS, they will handle it for you without your work place ever being involved.

    Reply ↓
  19. Richard Hershberger*

    Given that Sally gossiped about her pedo boyfriend to her roommate, it is unlikely that Beth is the only person she told. An anonymous tip may or may not be the best way to go, but I wouldn’t worry about it’s being traceable to Beth.

    Reply ↓
  20. Stella70*

    OP, please/please/please do not wait for this to play out. Look at his online record, get the name of his probation officer and report it to them directly. Today. You can almost certainly do it anonymously. The PO will know if this man prefers children or if the offense was from his [teenage?] relationship with his teenage girlfriend. The child’s safety trumps everything else. If you wait a day or two or three for the other parties to work up their courage, that is more time this man may have to harm the child – which is something you would never forgive yourself for. Now that you know, even if you wish you didn’t, you’re involved and responsible.

    Reply ↓
  21. Friday Hopeful*

    These convictions are public record. Anyone can stumble on this information. I really think you shouldn’t worry about what Beth would think, since she is putting her sister in direct danger, she obviously doesn’t care enough.

    Reply ↓
  22. A Book about Metals*

    I think it’s ok for OP, or Beth or anyone else who knows to tell Kathy since as was said this involved a child. Two things though:

    1) Kathy may already know and be ok with it – she’s known her daughter far longer than the rest of you and may trust her judgement if she is convinced Jerry is reformed, or she was 16 and he was 18,

    2) It may be impossible to mention this at all without causing workplace drama

    Reply ↓
    1. Rainy*

      1. If Kathy knows and is okay with it, Kathy’s judgement is suspect. Regardless of what Kathy thinks, the authorities need to be informed that Jerry is spending time with a minor, because he is definitely not supposed to be doing that.

      2. The safety of a child supersedes concerns about workplace drama in these calculations.

      Reply ↓
  23. SilverFlint*

    You have to say something, OP. Use Allison’s script if you feel the need to smooth thobgs over, but you *have* to say something. a child is at risk here; and if not this specific child, maybe her friends or whoever else the predator can get access to through her.

    Sally is dead wrong for not informing her mother. I grf thar Beth doesn’t want to get blamed and that makes it more difficult, but you *have* to say something.

    Reply ↓
  24. Observer*

    Please do not sens anything anonymous. It’s less likely to be taken seriously. And it’s going to cause a LOT more drama in the end.

    If your HR is any good loop them in, in an FYI way. This way if you get blow back disguised as workplace “concerns” they will have the context.

    And if you really get blowback, that will tell you a LOT about the people you work with. To be honest, I’m already side-eying Beth who is allowing her comfort to outweigh the baseline safety of a child. As for Sally? She’s trash. That’s the kindest and most AAM acceptable word I can come up with.

    I also would not trust her one inch. I know all about “compartmentalization”. But she’s willing to put her sister at risk for nothing more than her convenience. That’s a level of badness that doesn’t get compartmentalized.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      OP needs to realize that no matter how anonymous the report is made to Kathy or to CPS, Beth will be pointing at OP anyway.
      Sally will accuse (I guess that’s the word) Beth of “telling on Jerry.” Beth will admit she told OP.
      That’s going to happen.
      So is reporting anonymously even worth it?

      Reply ↓
    2. Person from the Resume*

      Why loop HR in?

      This is not a workplace issue. It’s an issue among friends.

      Sounds like this is a messy and unprofessional business environment with parents and children working there, people who work there being roommates, people sharing highly personal information with their friends whom they also happen to work with.

      Reply ↓
      1. Observer*

        Why loop HR in?

        Because any one of the three people involved could decide to retaliate against the LW in the workplace. And while it’s probably legal, it’s a bad thing that could harm the LW’s career if HR is not aware.

        None of the things you mention are inherently messy or unprofessional, *especially* not the roommate situation. The mother / daughter pair do not work in the same department – that would be unprofessional.

        Reply ↓
  25. NotARealManager*

    I once had a 32yo roommate who waited for a mutual acquaintance to turn 18 (we’d known her since she was about 16) and then he started regularly sleeping with her at our house. That was close enough to pedophile territory for me to voice my discomfort and move out as much as I could (we only had a week left on our lease). Obviously it wasn’t a crime, but it was squicky.

    Alison is right. OP should speak up if Beth doesn’t.

    Reply ↓
      1. linger*

        It certainly falls foul of the commonly-cited squick formula
        (age of older person) ≥ 2*(age of younger person – 7)
        which for someone of age N gives a dating age boundary of ((N/2+7), 2N-14)
        e.g.
        someone aged 22 should not normally date anyone younger than 18 or older than 30
        someone aged 32 should not normally date anyone younger than 23 or older than 50

        — though to be clear, the math is just a first-pass approximation to messier probability assessments of likely power imbalances and worldview-compatibility issues arising from large age gaps. (Successful relationships may be possible with larger age gaps than the simple calculation suggests, but larger gaps do indicate a need for extreme caution.)

        Reply ↓
      2. Mango Freak*

        The squick is, that’s what grooming is.

        People have been tearing that term to shreds lately, but NotARealManager’s former roommate was a groomer.

        Reply ↓
      3. Dahlia*

        1. It’s grooming
        2. If you wait until the MOMENT someone is 18 to have sex with them, it means you would have had sex with them before that if it was legal.

        Reply ↓
      4. goddessoftransitory*

        It reminds me of those sickos who would put up web pages with counters marking off the days until underage celebrities were “legal.” The Olson twins had several of these floating around out there.

        Reply ↓
    2. Silver Robin*

      Because it feels like he “girlfriend zoned” her since she was a minor. He was friends with her for the sake of waiting out the clock, not because he valued her as a person. And since he did it to a minor, that is pedophilia and unacceptable.

      And what 30+ year old is into teenagers? They should be in completely different stages of life. If they are not (he never progressed past 18, or she is somehow showing the maturity/social progression of a 30+ year old), then something is wrong enough that they should not be dating each other, or he is a predator and they should not be dating each other.

      Reply ↓
      1. Worldwalker*

        Edward. He’s like 100, and Bella is a teenager.

        I just had to throw that in there … it’s one of the many ways those books squick me.

        Reply ↓
      2. NotARealManager*

        Yeah. This was not the first time people raised their eyebrows at the women he dated. He dated A LOT and though this was the youngest person he dated that I knew of, friends and I asked ourselves “what is going on with him that women his age (approximately 26+) won’t date him?”. When it was clear it was a pattern, it was a major red flag and when he brought the teenager over, I was out of there and made sure our friends knew why.

        What made me feel like I was a crazy person was the number of people who just shrugged and said “well, she’s 18”. Her parents were also really excited about the relationship which made me feel like I was in an alternate universe.

        Reply ↓
        1. goddessoftransitory*

          Have you seen the British film An Education? It’s based on an essay by a woman whose first relationship was with this type of predator. In the movie Carey Mulligan plays the teen girl and Peter Saarsgard the man.

          One of the main points made is that the reason he’s so successful is that he very openly and “properly” courts her–comes to see her and meets her parents, takes her on grown up, romantic dinner dates. What he’s doing is not only seducing her with the idea that he sees her maturity and sophistication (in reality, of course, it’s her naivete and youth he’s attracted to) but, crucially, seducing her parents as well.

          They are working class, and he comes across as this wealthy, charming man who sees how special their daughter is. They believe in him totally. They think how lucky they ALL are that young Jenny has managed to attract such a catch.

          That’s the kind of thinking these guys encourage. They groom the whole family, actively and consciously.

          Reply ↓
  26. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

    The number of people carrying water for a sex offender in this thread is disheartening. “maybe he was a teenager, maybe his gf was 17….” Why is anybody giving this dude the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, not sorry if you think I’m being harsh. Stop making excuses for these guys.

    Reply ↓
    1. CityMouse*

      Yes and also, the idea that you’d make the decision on whether the mother should know is pretty gross. You don’t decide for another parent what their tolerance is and deny them information.

      Reply ↓
    2. Lacey*

      It really is. I know everyone knows someone who they believe was unfairly convicted, but let’s be real. It’s SO hard to get a conviction, even with eye witnesses.

      Reply ↓
      1. CityMouse*

        I’ve seen these cases in real life when working for a judge and I can’t begin convey to you just how bad this stuff can be. Yes, there are exceptions people can point to. I have a friend who served on a jury for a CSM case and he literally booked a therapist as soon as he was allowed to talk about it.

        Reply ↓
    3. Wait, What???*

      Exactly. It is realllllly disturbing to me that so many on this thread are trying to find mitigating circumstances. Let the mom do the research if need be, but she needs to know this immediately.

      Reply ↓
      1. CityMouse*

        And like the idea that this doesn’t hurt kids. This exact situation plays out all the time, people don’t tell or make excuses and kids get hurt. It happens so, so much. The grandpa everyone knew about, that one youth pastor people whispered about, the boyfriend who said he changed. It happens ALL the time.

        Reply ↓
    4. Bex (in computers)*

      “ooooh, maybe they were high school sweethearts and their love was fraught…”

      “oooh, maybe he just really had to pee…”

      Ooooh, or maybe, just maybe, he’s actually a pedophile, like his new girlfriend called him, and we should do what the site says, which is take the letter writers at their word, instead of spinning whole new worlds to wash away the absolutely unacceptable actions of pedophiles who are disgusting and irredeemable.

      Sometimes this comment section is just disgusting.

      Reply ↓
    5. Jennifer Strange*

      Thank you. The LW (who knows the situation better than any of us) says he is a convicted pedophile. They reference sharing his public record, so they have likely seen whatever “nuance” there may be. Even if it is a situation that many of us would give some leeway on, that’s still Kathy’s decision to make for her own daughter.

      Reply ↓
    6. Reebee*

      What’s worse is telling people they’re “carrying water for a sex offender” when what they’re doing is commenting on varying degrees of what “sex offender” can mean legally.

      Facts matter, no matter how nuanced.

      Reply ↓
      2. Jennifer Strange*

        You’re right, facts matter. In this case the LW (who knows the situation better than anyone here) says he is a convicted pedophile. Those are the facts.

        Reply ↓
      3. Bex (in computers)*

        No, people are looking for a way to make it right to not tell the mother of the tween daughter about the convicted sex offender who is at the apartment her tween stays at some of the time. Considering the girlfriend of said sex offender has called said sex offender a pedophile, yeah, folks are carrying water. It’s gross.

        Reply ↓
      4. Socks*

        The issue is the number of people going on about the issues with the sex offender registry when it’s barely related to the post. OP didn’t stumble across this guy on the sex offender registry. Beth didn’t even stumble across this guy on the sex offender registry. Sally TOLD Beth her boyfriend was a convicted pedophile. The fact that he’s on the sex offender registry just provides an additional data point that it’s unlikely Beth made this up wholesale.

        But since “the sex offender registry has issues” is the popular “unpopular” opinion du jour, people are derailing the conversation to talk about how they know people who they think are unfairly on the registry

        Reply ↓
        1. Socks*

          Replying to myself to add that no one in this story has reason to omit any exonerating information. Sally wants to justify continuing to date her boyfriend. Beth wants to not blow up her living situation. The OP doesn’t want to blow up the office. If there was some innocent reason he was on the registry, it would’ve been communicated.

          Reply ↓
      5. Ellis Bell*

        Does that change the advice to speak up though, really? If people are concerned, it sounds like those concerns should be aired and looked into and deeply checked out by the parent who has a responsibility to their child. If it all turns out to be fine, that’s a much better scenario than keeping your mouth shut, and letting the risks roll, because you’re afraid of being wrong.

        Reply ↓
      6. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

        Really? That’s worse? Please explain to me how that is worse than ignoring the fact that a convicted pedophile is around a tween. Show your work.

        Reply ↓
      7. fhqwhgads*

        OK sure, but it reads like A) the person dating him used the word pedophile, B) the person who wrote in has seen his entry in the sex offender registry (which would include what he was convicted of) and is also using the word pedophile.
        So while the term can be other nuanced things, there’s very little reason to think those other things apply in this scenario, and there are multiple reasons to think the VERY BAD SCENARIO is this one.

        Reply ↓
    7. Not all conversations*

      As I said earlier, there are people who will turn the conversation to “but what about the sexting teens!” when the original topic is a father who locked up his daughter for years to abuse. It really makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

      Reply ↓
    8. Worldwalker*

      I don’t think anyone is making excuses for these guys. I think people are genuinely frustrated by trying to give advice on a situation where they are missing some critical facts that would make all the difference.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        Except it wouldn’t. Regardless of the “nuances” Kathy’s daughter is hanging out with a convicted pedophile and she deserves to know that and decide how she wants to proceed. Even if he did something that was everyone here would agree isn’t a bad thing (a HUGE if, especially considering the LW has seen his record) Kathy needs to have all of the information.

        Reply ↓
      2. Oh so anon*

        I’m afraid I really disagree. It would be wildly inappropriate for the LW to go into detail about the actual crime in an internet advice column, but it sounds like, from her thought about texting an anonymous shot of the registry entry, that she does, in fact, know more about the crime than she is sharing. Secondly, Kathy has the right to know important information about the people who are around her daughter in potentially risky situations. She doesn’t have to do anything with that information on the (I think slim) chance that this is a minor issue.

        Reply ↓
      3. New Jack Karyn*

        What critical facts are missing? OP has seen the registry, Sally referred to him as a pedophile. Shall we take OP at her word that Jerry should not be around a pubescent girl?

        Reply ↓
    9. Media Monkey*

      exactly. if it was one of those romeo and juliet cases, sally would have told Kathy. given the situation it seems unlikely that’s the case.

      Reply ↓
  27. Pippa K*

    I stg people on this site look for more nuance in “convicted pedophile hanging out with tween” than in “my manager wants to have offsite team-building activities.”

    Sure, there are levels of sex offence, and that might be relevant to Sally’s decision to date this guy. (Weird that this did not apparently come up when Sally told Beth about the conviction. If I were Beth, my first response to Sally would have been “good lord, what did he do?”) But the OP either doesn’t know it or knows it’s something worse than “teen dating scenario,” so the answer has to be “tell the mother, possibly tell other authorities.”

    This is not a close call, and not a situation in which OP and Beth need to play Scooby Doo Detectives before acting.

    Reply ↓
    1. stunning and brave*

      Right?? When someone writes in about return-to-office policies, this site can’t condemn them fast enough. Convicted sex offender? Well, I would need to have more information first…

      Reply ↓
    2. roller*

      lmao yes why is there more nuance here than in Leap Birthday manager? Sometimes people are so tuned into true crime “there’s always another twist” that they forget the obvious, clear moral stance to take.

      Reply ↓
  28. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    I see a lot of posts about the nuance of the crime being a factor in OP’s actions. Yes, there are issues in the sex registry. That is all irrelevant to OP’s position.

    OP does not and should not take on the job of researching and deciding what kind of sex offender is ok for Lucy to be around. That is Kathy’s call, not OP, not Beth, not even Sally.

    OP should not wait for Sally or Beth to make the right call. Let Kathy know what the facts are and let Kathy do what she deems best for her daughter.

    Reply ↓
  29. BellaStella*

    Sally also may need to evaluate why she is possibly putting her younger sister at risk of being abused or assaulted. And why she has not told her mom.

    I personally could not date a person with this in bis past anyway and certainly not if I had younger siblings.

    I find this odd.

    Reply ↓
    1. A Book about Metals*

      I would agree, which made me wonder how they all know that Sally hasn’t told the mom – it’s not like the mom would necessarily start bringing it up in the workplace.

      Reply ↓
    2. CityMouse*

      Unfortunately those of us who have worked in this field can tell you, this kind of thing happens all the time. Often it’s even the parent who knowingly dates someone with a conviction, or an uncle who’s allowed access to other kids.

      Reply ↓
      1. H.Regalis*

        I think my other comment was too graphic to go through, but this.

        I’ve seen too many people I otherwise would have considered decent make apologies and excuses for pedophiles because they don’t want to believe someone they know would do something so horrible.

        The kids get called liars, or people say the kid initiated things. Too many people who will let kids around the molester uncle/sibling/grandparent because “it would be wrong” to not invite a family member to a family gathering and they’ll totally keep an eye on the Family Pedophile the whole time so nothing happens. Kids’ safety and wellbeing gets sacrificed on the altars of keeping up appearances and prioritizing rapists over their victims.

        Reply ↓
        1. ThursdaysGeek*

          Or worse – when we found out about two teen sisters’ abuse by their grandfather, and went to their mother, her response was that it happened to her too, and they kept things in the family – we were not to go to the authorities. (We didn’t even know his name nor where he lived – the family would have had to cooperate. Years later, I still feel sick at my inability to do anything.)

          Reply ↓
  30. H.Regalis*

    Tell Kathy. The risk to Lucy 100% outweighs any potential impugnment on Jerry’s character. This isn’t a court of law. You do not need to prove beyond the benefit of a doubt that Jerry was definitely for sure legitimately convicted before you act.

    Reply ↓
    2. KJC*

      CORRECT. Take ANY, literally ANY training with professional therapists related to pedophiles and sexual abuse protections, and this is what you will hear. Protect the child, do not have her around him AT ALL, period. Recidivism is high, treatment is almost never effective, and pedophiles need to stay away from children at all times (it’s like an alcoholic – you don’t just stay away from being alone with bottles of alcohol, you also don’t go to bars).

      Reply ↓
  31. Practically*

    Yes, people need to be warned here. At the same time, make sure you or Beth know more details. It can make a difference if the conviction was for molesting a young kid, vs. being a 17YO who had sex with a 16YO, and the girl’s parents pressed charges. If it’s the former, then I think you could actually tip off the police or social services.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      Other people made the argument that OP and Beth shouldn’t be determining what Kathy does and doesn’t need to know. I agree with that. I don’t think they need to know more details than “Sally said Jerry is on the sex offender list.”
      Beth tells Kathy, who has all the tools that Beth and OP have to investigate Jerry. Telling Kathy is where their moral obligation stops.

      Reply ↓
    2. KJC*

      Hi girlfriend told her “he is a pedophile.” The definition of pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, not someone who by mere technicality ended up on a list. There does not need to be any investigating here. The OP has an obligation to tell the parent what she heard and knows IMMEDIATELY, and the parent can decide what to do with that information and whether they want to do any more investigating. Priority number one is protecting the child starting this second, above all other considerations of friendship or “do your own research” or any other such suggestions.

      Reply ↓
  32. Bex (in computers)*

    I mean, Sally called her boyfriend a pedophile. How much water is everyone in this comments section willing to carry for this kid diddler?

    Stop it. It’s disgusting and gross. It’s absolutely sickening seeing the number of people ignore the part where the girlfriend FLAT OUT STATES HER BOYFRIEND IS A PEDOPHILE in favor of making up weird excuses where somehow he’s not that bad of a guy.

    Just gross.

    Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        You literally stated above that a person shouldn’t report a potential pedophile because you might ruin their reputation.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lizy*

          They literally didn’t?

          I think the consensus is definitely to tell Kathy, but how much to tell Kathy is the issue. As I said above, there’s a big difference between telling someone “hey btw saw this thought you’d want to know and do your own research” verses “YOUR DAUGHTER IS HANGING OUT WITH A PEDO WHO KNOWS SHE MIGHT BE NEXT”.

          It’s not OP’s job to figure out how to keep Lucy safe. Tell Kathy, and move on.

          Reply ↓
          1. Jennifer Strange*

            They did, but the comment has been (rightfully) removed.

            Also, you can’t tell Kathy the situation without telling her the pedophile part. That’s literally the entire thing to be told.

            Reply ↓
          2. Hlao-roo*

            They literally didn’t?

            Reebee did make a comment to that effect earlier in the day. The comment has since been removed, which is why you can’t see it.

            Reply ↓
    2. CityMouse*

      I think people often live in a denial about just how bad some stuff can be, unfortunately. That you can’t imagine what people are capable of doing. That you think you’d be able to tell by looking at them. You can’t.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bex (in computers)*

        Yes, people live in denial all of the time about CSA matters. They don’t want to face them, they don’t want to acknowledge them, and they don’t want to admit that someone they know or are related to (typically – that’s how most cases of CSA go) could do something like that to their family. And so, this willing blindness to the sickness of some individuals, to their depravity and their darkness, continues to put children and tweens and teens at risk. Because no one wants to acknowledge it, no one wants to do anything about it, no one really wants to think something that horrible could be happening right in their own house or neighborhood or friend group or family.

        It’s the same reason why friend groups will continue to harbor individuals who brag about sleeping with people too incapacitated by alcohol or drugs to willingly consent, rather than shunning that person from the friend group with the (rightful) reasoning of “Sorry, no, we don’t hang out with r*pists*

        Reply ↓
        1. Worldwalker*

          We expect our monsters to have horns and fangs.

          They don’t. Monsters look just like us. They’re one of us.

          I remember, some years ago, a movie that was criticized because it “humanized” an evil dictator. Yeah, that evil dictator. They wanted everyone to imagine him with horns, parading his evil in full view, not a guy who loved his dog, and was nice to his secretary. But evil people do love their dogs and are nice to their secretaries. They say all the right things. They tell us what we want to hear. Evil dictators who murder their own citizens by the millions look no different than anyone else. You can’t spot them so readily.

          We want our monsters to have horns because then we can look around and feel safe — no horns here. That kinda skeevy uncle? Nope, no horns; he’s just fine with your kids. That youth group leader? Your new boyfriend? Nope, no horns on them either. You’re safe.

          Except that you’re not safe. Your kids aren’t safe. Because the monsters look just like us — they are just like us, except for, y’know, being monsters.

          Imagine any of the great monstrous dictators of the 20th century, not posing for the cameras, not in military uniforms, but just chilling out in front of the TV with a beer. (well, you’ll probably have to imagine out Stalin’s moustache) Yeah … they’ll look just like anyone else. No horns, no fangs, just a soul of pure evil. And you can’t see the soul.

          Or look at any of the smaller monsters, who there are probably a lot more candid photos of. Ted Bundy didn’t look like a monster. Neither did Timothy McVeigh. Or Dennis Rader. We want to believe that the guy we sat next to on the volunteer helpline, the guy we served with in the army, the congregation president in our church, weren’t serial killers or mass murders. They seemed so nice!

          But they were monsters. They kept their fangs and horns carefully hidden. Monsters that don’t do that get caught early on. The most dangerous ones are the ones that can look normal, act normal, until they kill you.

          Nobody wants to acknowledge it because that would mean that their monster detector (or the one they think they have) isn’t working. It would mean that they’re not as safe as they think they are. And that’s something most people don’t want to face.

          Reply ↓
      2. Ellis Bell*

        An acquaintance saw an old article of mine in which I named a pedophile who had just been sentenced for very serious harm to a young boy, and she said what an unusual case it must have been. She was totally stunned when I told her the only unusual thing about it was being able to name the guy in print. Because we have to protect the identity of the child, it usually protects the identity of the adult and kills the entire story. How do you tell a story about someone with the same name/address/family as the victim without outing the victim. The truth is this stuff is as common as water.

        Reply ↓
        1. Anona*

          As an incest/child prostitution survivor whose parents would still say I was lying and my bio father doesn’t exist? This. G-d. This. People do not want to believe it or they blame you (I have had people say ‘well you probably looked eighteen’

          Reply ↓
  33. Person from the Resume*

    I am off the opinion that this isn’t actually a workplace question.

    These is a personal question about what to do in a friends group (who also knows one of the friends’ mother) about what to do about a friend making terrible choices. Do the moral thing (you know what is) and risk fallout for you and Beth in order to prevent a pedophile from spending time with a teen. Also discontinue any friendship Sally.

    Just start acting professionally towards everyone involved (including Kathy after you share this news) and keep discussions on precessional and surface level topics. No more personal discussions about who’s dating who and roommate issues.

    Reply ↓
  34. Tuckerman*

    I sometimes think back to the Jerry Sandusky case. Many people knew, nobody reported to the police. It doesn’t matter how many people know, it’s making sure the right people know.

    Reply ↓
    1. Worldwalker*

      Including that assistant coach Mike McQueary who caught Sandusky in the act and didn’t turn him in. Didn’t even say “dude, what are you doing???. He knew more than anyone else — aside from the victims, he was the only person with first-hand evidence. And he didn’t report it to the police.

      Reply ↓
      1. inksmith*

        That someone walked in on it happening and then just… did nothing… is so horrifying to me. Like, imagine being that victim, thinking someone is going to rescue you and then realising that, no, actually, that person is comfortable leaving you to be abused.

        Reply ↓
  35. Dawn*

    This is going to be the weirdest “life lesson” I’ve ever taught but this is, uh, why you don’t share with your coworkers that your boyfriend is a convicted pedophile.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      The lesson is, “if you want to keep a secret, you don’t tell anyone.”
      Sally told her roommate. Her roommate who works at her company. The company where her own mother works.
      Unring that bell, Sally.

      Reply ↓
            1. Part time lab tech*

              Unless there’s a frog in the well or bees in the orchard. (ref. “Can You Keep A Secret?”, Barbara Ker Wilson)

              Reply ↓
    2. Sneaky Squirrel*

      I think the life lesson here is don’t allow your personal life to overlap with your work life. That Sally works at the same company as her mom and her roommate was a situation asking for workplace gossip.

      Reply ↓
      1. I don't work in this van*

        This is what I was thinking so, so hard. This combination of relationships should not be working together.

        Reply ↓
  36. toolegittoresign*

    Look him up on the registry and find out how to report to the local authorities that he’s spending time with a minor. That is a reasonable thing to report and I’m sure he’s obligated to disclose his status to people. You can do something without having to tell Kathy.

    Reply ↓
    2. Bex (in computers)*

      Yes! Absolutely! Leave the parent out of this and absolutely don’t let her make any decisions about where her child goes. Instead, rely on a bureaucracy that might or might not be understaffed and overworked to look into this report, while the tween still goes to visit for an unknown period of time until said report is looked into, because tween and mother have never been warned. I am sure that the pedophile – sorry, SEX OFFENDER – will not take advantage of this ongoing relationship and the potential building of trust to abuse and victimize the tween. Why, that rarely happens, right?

      Reply ↓
      1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        I’m with you. Why do people think OP has a duty to research what she heard from Beth? She can say she was told, “A person told me that your daughter told her that Jerry is a registered sex offender. I believe the person who told me did not make it up. I believe she was told by the person she said named. I believe she told me everything that she knows. Ultimately, I don’t know if it is true or not but I think you should investigate. “

        Reply ↓
        1. Boof*

          If OP starts sharing rumors they are obliged to either verify the rumor or not spread it, at least when it’s something fairly easy to verify. Otherwise you’re getting into harassment/slander territory; we are seeing these days just how dangerous “oh I heard X [misinformation] and just passed it along uncritically because what if it’s true and anyway it’s not my job to fact check” can be

          Reply ↓
          1. Bex (in computers)*

            It’s not a rumor, OP has seen the public record and was considering passing it along to the mother of the tween in question. It’s stated right in OP’s letter.

            Reply ↓
            1. Boof*

              Sorry, I missed in the first pass / allison’s comment wasn’t up earlier. Yes if they’ve already looked it up they need to report it to whoever is listed to report it to +tell Kathy right away, let the chips fall where they may but they did the best thing.
              That being said this comment was in response to “Why do people think OP has a duty to research what she heard from Beth? ” – OP did need to confirm Jerry was on the registry before reporting it/passing that on – anyone who is in such a situation should confirm before passing on something like this especially since it should be quite doable.

              Reply ↓
            1. Boof*

              uhg – comment threads and out of context responses @-@ This whole thread here made me think she hadn’t already looked him up at first pass

              Reply ↓
            1. Boof*

              I missed on the first pass that they had already found jerry’s record + was responding to a comment about “Why do people think OP has a duty to research what she heard from Beth?” – if LW hadn’t looked it up, they should before passing it along. Since they have, carry on with letting Kathy know+ anyone else who ought to be alerted (if any; dunno what the public record said) asap.

              Reply ↓
    3. Boof*

      Yea there’s an awful lot of second hand information here, verifying the facts – ie they ought to be on a registry if they are a convicted pedophile – is step one over spreading rumors. If the rumors are true step 2 is to report it to authorities and to guardians.
      A long time ago I had an internet friend who ended up in love with a convicted pedophile… the whole situation left me with a little more sympathy as it sounds like their boyfriend was working hard, going to therapy, and very VERY careful about avoiding any contact with minors both because (according to the person I talked to) they appreciated how bad it is and also they really don’t want to go back to jail etc. Kind of like an alcoholic – there’s just no safe casual drinking just avoid it and then no one has to wonder. I get that it’s a lot harder to function in society and avoid all minors (ie, when you can’t live near a school, suddenly you realize how little housing is available) but of course notify everyone and make sure there’s always a guardian etc etc.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bex (in computers)*

        OP has already researched – if you read the letter, you’ll see that OP mentioned possibly sending screenshots of the public record to the mother (perhaps anonymously to avoid fallout/drama). This isn’t rumor – this is fact.

        Reply ↓
        1. Boof*

          Ok – on the first pass I didn’t fully catch that + I was responding to a comment that said “look him up on the registry” which is what i was trying to agree with. Confirm first; since it is confirmed they should report it to whoever the registry says to report it to + text it to Kathy if they have Kathy’s number like that seems to imply; though I’d vote they should just do it from their own phone and not bother with anonymity unless there’s some reason they want minimal engagement with Kathy in general.

          Reply ↓
    4. Public Defender*

      This is not great advice. I am a criminal defense attorney, and at least in my state, people convicted of sex offenses are almost never prohibited from having any contact with children – usually, it is only unsupervised contact that is limited, if there is a limit at all. It sounds like this contact is supervised. And people convicted of sex offenses are not obligated to disclose their status to people.

      Additionally, it is very possible that this person’s conviction is public, but that he is not currently on any supervision (probation/parole) at all, especially if the conviction occurred many years ago.

      Reply ↓
      1. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

        If the person is on the registry but isn’t violating any conditions being around young people, LW can still report the fact of his being on the registry to Kathy, who can then make an informed choice about Lucy’s safety.

        Reply ↓
      2. Ellis Bell*

        Yep, I always feel that the law assumes that parents know who their kids are hanging out with, and making information publicly available is somehow enough. Meantime society assumes there’s someone with legal authority keeping all the unsafe people in line…

        Reply ↓
    6. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

      Yes, this!

      Once you have the link to that information, you can also share that with Kathy anonymously from some throwaway account. Or out the guy publicly on shared social media spaces, again anonymously.

      Workplace drama be damned. Lucy’s safety is the only priority here.

      Reply ↓
    7. Worldwalker*

      That makes more sense than some of the proposals. Gets the proper authorities involved, protects the child, and achieves the LW’s goal of not causing a dramastorm at work.

      Reply ↓
  37. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    Tell Kathy immediately that Sally’s bf is a convicted paedophile.
    Kathy, as the tween’s mother, has the right to have this information so she can decide how to protect her child. Her sister is clearly prioritising her convicted bf over her little sister’s safety.

    Do NOT delay even 1 day because of concerns about Beth – an adult with an angry room-mate is much less vulnerable than a child with a paedophile.
    Sometimes you have to break confidences – you are not Beth’s therapist, priest or lawyer.

    Do NOT wait to investigate yourself, or wait to bring in HR, his probation officer etc.
    You should alert HR after you tell Kathy and let them investigate if they wish. It’s not your job to investigate or assess criminal associates of coworkers.

    Reply ↓
    1. KJC*

      Absolutely agree. This is serious, and there is NO QUESTION the parent has a right and a need to know. And any parent would be justifiably LIVID if someone had this information and did not share it with them immediately.

      Reply ↓
      1. allathian*

        Yeah this. Sally’s showing really poor judgment here. I wouldn’t blame Kathy for going NC with Sally once she does find out that the boyfriend’s a pedo, whether or not he’s abused Lucy yet. I fear it’s only a matter of time unless something’s done.

        Reply ↓
  38. I wear my sunglasses at night*

    So Sally…knows she’s dating a convicted pedophile…but is cool letting him be around her tween sister?????

    Uhhhh…dude. I know this is a a thing that happens including but wow.

    Reply ↓
  39. Nonsense*

    Holy hell, what is wrong with people in here today? We have decades of conviction statistics that prove sex offenses have some of the lowest conviction rates, and more importantly, we have the statistics that show that false sex offense convictions are exceedingly rare and even rarer are “Romeo and Juliet” cases or urinating in the streets. But wow oh wow, are so many of you suddenly willing to believe that best of people when it comes to sex abuse against minors! There simply must be another side to the story! God forbid we believe the victims!

    Reply ↓
    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      I think you’re making a lot of leaping arguments. No one (or at least very few, I didn’t read every comment) is defending the actions of the sex offender. However, as someone posted above – people convicted of sex offenses are not obligated to disclose their status to people and are almost never prohibited from having any contact with children. Whether it’s right for Sally to share/not share her boyfriend’s status with her mom is not really a work issue and it is not really LW’s business given that LW only learned the information through second hand gossip and is only speculating on some of the information, such as whether Sally’s mom knows. This issue is between Sally/boyfriend, Sally’s mom, and Sally’s roommate.

      Reply ↓
      2. Nonsense*

        LW received information from a credible source (Beth is a known coworker and Sally’s roommate) and confirmed that information (checked the online registry). That is no longer second-hand information.

        Reply ↓
      3. AngryOwl*

        I’m confused as to why you’re not concerned about allowing a minor near a sex offender simply because LW learned about it at work. No it’s not a “work” issue, it’s a humanity issue.

        And I don’t mean that in a snarky manner. I’m honestly confused as to how you don’t see this as important.

        Reply ↓
      4. Hlao-roo*

        No one (or at least very few, I didn’t read every comment) is defending the actions of the sex offender.

        The comments section has been cleaned up a bit. Earlier, there was one commenter who trotted out the tired “what if he just had to pee outside?” line and there were a handful of commenters who said they would want to know Jerry wasn’t caught up in a “20-year-old and 17-year-old” or “18-yo and 15-yo” situation before they said anything about it. Most of those comments are gone now, but that’s the context for Nonsense’s comment (which I agree with, for what it’s worth).

        Reply ↓
      6. Meep*

        You: “I haven’t seen anyone defending him.”
        Also You: *defends him*

        And yes, sex offenders, especially pedophiles, are often not allowed access to children and need to disclose if they are. Stop defending criminal activity.

        Reply ↓
        1. Gust of wind*

          Some time ago I read about introducing the word “pedocriminal” as a way to distinguish between between the pedophiles who are people who don’t hurt children because they are doing their best to work on themselves and know that fulfilling their urges would hurt children and they don’t want that, and pedophiles who did/do hurt children. I think that distinction is great, because it supports non criminal pedophiles in their journey of keeping children safe from them. Also in my native language we distinguish between “primary pedophiles” and “secondary pedophiles”. With “primary” beeing solely attracted to children and “secondary” beeing attracted to children and adults. And I read that most pedocriminals are actually secondary pedophiles. Many pedophiles never hurt children, because they are working on themselves. The person referred to is a convicted pedocriminal and Kathy should be warned, because in the past he was willing to and did hurt children!
          I really hope I don’t have to change my name after this comment! I do think children have to be protected from pedophiles and pedocriminals, but I think we should distinguish between bad people and people with an illness that are fighting to treat themselves.

          Reply ↓
          2. Fluff*

            Thanks.

            In my home country there is a push to treat pedophilia before it becomes any type of action – they have a program and people can self refer too. The focus is on prevention and only people who have never acted out their philia are eligible. The preventive program does investigate to make sure no crime had been done and assesses safety. I hope more treatment options can help people come forward before they commit a crime in the US where I live now.

            Once someone has been attacked, victimized, etc., the optics change dramatically as does the treatment and chance of recovery (neuropathways and all that ::insert scientific stuff:: changes once the person actually acted on their urges).

            Reply ↓
  40. Apple maker*

    Am I the only one that thinks both Beth and Sally have terrible judgement? Sally is dating a *convicted pedophile*, who Beth allows in the house that they share.

    Clearly neither of them are taking this seriously. Escalate to Kathy. Forget workplace drama, this is a dangerous situation.

    Reply ↓
    2. The Kulprit*

      The fact that they have such awful judgment makes me more worried. Predators seek out people who will give them access to victims and socially insulate them.

      Like, not telling guardians about your conviction while you have access to their kid.

      Reply ↓
  41. V*

    This is absolutely something Kathy should know. Hopefully it’s the best case scenario, where it was in a place where even a small age gap is illegal if either party is below the age of consent, and the younger person’s parents were feeling vindictive. In that case, a simple conversation should address the issue. But if he’s committed what is undoubtedly a violent crime, he should not have access to children. Second chances do not mean trusting someone around potential victims.

    If it really is no big deal and Lucy isn’t in danger, it’s still going to be much better for her to hear it now (ideally from Sally and/or Jerry) than to find it by googling him in 6 months and finding out they’ve been hiding this from her

    Reply ↓
  42. BigLawEx*

    So Beth dumped this bombshell (and all the guilt/obligation that goes with it), and just turned and walked away and NOW doesn’t want the LW to say anything. First, side eye for Beth. Either Beth is an awful gossip, or she wants someone to take action that’s not her. That’s a lot of emotional labor to pass on to someone else…

    Reply ↓
  43. Hyaline*

    I’m trying to be sensitive here but…where is the question?!? LW, you know that Jerry is a convicted pedophile and have even looked up his record and are, presumably, concerned enough about said record to believe Kathy should be informed. For the “maybe it was just drunk peeing in public” type speculation–ok, so what? Maybe it was–and LW still feels Kathy should know. But more likely, it’s NOT and she feels Kathy should know. Either way. She has enough information here that she feels Kathy should know. There’s no question here. Tell Kathy. In whatever way works–I, personally, would skip all the middlemen and just inform Kathy. At this point my assessment of Sally and Beth’s judgment is very negative and I would not trust them to pass along information appropriately. But I also see no reason why you shouldn’t approach Kathy directly–no burner emails or nonsense like that. It’s ok to acknowledge, “this is uncomfortable for me, but I found out about this and I really feel you should know…” but it should be shared transparently.

    I get not wanting to make waves, and I get not wanting to upset people, but the ethical line here was made by a giant black Sharpie. It’s not even close to a dilemma. If there’s fallout, it’s because–and I’m not kidding here–these are bad, selfish people who value a relationship with an adult pedophile over the safety of a young girl. There is no question here.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hlao-roo*

      I’m trying to be sensitive here but…where is the question?!?

      The question was right at the end of the letter: “What would you suggest to protect the child, while also avoiding as much workplace drama as possible?”

      The question could be re-phrased as both “who should I address this with?” and “can you help me with a script for how to address this situation with [Beth/Sally/Kathy]?”

      People often write in because they know there is a problem and they need advice on who to talk to and how to talk to them.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hyaline*

        *while avoiding as much workplace drama as possible* yes my point—you cannot and should not consider that here. Any drama is unavoidable because of other people’s terrible decisions. There isn’t really a question—tell Kathy however it works to tell her, end of story.

        Reply ↓
  44. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

    I understand the argument that people should be given a second chance, not ostracized for the rest of their lives.

    It’s not supposed to be “let’s pretend he was never convicted, and put him in situations where he can repeat his crime.”

    If you’re giving a convicted embezzler a second chance, you don’t hire them for a job handling your money–you hire them for any of a thousand other jobs, and let them start at the bottom if their accounting degree is now irrelevant.

    Giving this guy a second chance might mean hiring him for a job where he won’t be in contact with children. It might even involve giving him a place to live, but if so, it should be somewhere that won’t put him in contact with children. If he’s serious about taking that second chance, he should absolutely avoid children, and that includes his girlfriend’s sister.

    Reply ↓
  45. RagingADHD*

    Nearly every sex offender who re-offends was surrounded by a network people who knew the facts and enabled them to continue operating by choosing not to warn or protect potential victims.

    Usually out of a desire to avoid “drama.”

    The choice to protect the offender’s access to a child is not passive or neutral.

    Reply ↓
      1. Bex (in computers)*

        See but no one here wants to acknowledge that, and the risks that the tween sister faces. Instead, a lot of commenters seem to be interested in getting tangled up in the shortcomings of the sex offender registry, rather than the fact that at least 3 people are aware of a PEDOPHILE who is around the tween at least on occasion.

        Because let’s be super concerned about that disgusting excuse for a human being, instead of the potential victims being laid out so neatly in his path.

        Reply ↓
          1. Bex (in computers)*

            A whole bunch of comments were cleaned up and removed that wanted to sidetrack into the possibility that, despite the girlfriend and the letter writer were botj calling him a pedophile, there could be so many different reasons for the boyfriend being on the sex offenders registry. Perhaps Romeo and Juliet situation. Perhaps peeing in public. All sorts of situations that overlooked the whole pedophilia of it all, and the actual question, to instead divert attention to shortcomings with the SORs in various areas.

            Reply ↓
  46. Pick a Duck*

    This is really upsetting. OP, how are you going to live with yourself when something happens to this kid? And it almost undoubtedly will. As has been mentioned before, these men set themselves up in situations for easy access. How you can even stay friends with Sally in the first place is mind boggling.

    Reply ↓
    1. Liz Lemler*

      They asked about how to tell Kathy… I’m not sure how they’re “letting” anything happen. and they never even said they were friends with Sally, just coworkers.

      Reply ↓
  47. Just unbelievable*

    I am just about in tears here. I can’t believe so many people making excuses. Let mom decide what is and isn’t “bad enough.” TELL HER NOW. I have never ever thought I would stop reading this site but the comments here that suggest maybe he wasn’t so bad are sickening. Why are people speculating? The GF said he was a convicted pedophile! Why make up “facts” that would mitigate this? This is just disgusting and disheartening. Also: Would y’all be saying “Well, maybe it was really this or that,” if it was your own tween kid hanging out with this guy? I sure hope not.

    Reply ↓
  48. Meep*

    I’m just going to say this…

    Sex offenders CANNOT be rehabilitated.
    80% will reoffend within the first year of release.

    If he hasn’t hurt Sally’s sister, he has hurt someone else by now.

    Reply ↓
    1. Boof*

      They can be. However. Being rehabbed does not mean hanging out with potential victims. quite the opposite, really; no more than going through alcohol rehab apparently successfully means you can go out to bars and start casually drinking!

      Reply ↓
    2. New Jack Karyn*

      Where are you getting that statistic? I couldn’t find anything like that number anywhere.

      I’m really not comfortable with a blanket statement that no sex offenders can ever be rehabilitated. Since most of them will be released, we’d better try to improve at lowering recidivism. Falsely stating that it’s impossible to do makes that work all that much harder.

      Reply ↓
  49. Fluff*

    I know a convicted male pedophile, so I asked him.

    He recommended to please TELL Kathy. Emphatically.

    He said that he tells the folks who are coming into his family (like new spouses, etc. anyone who has any potential to bring a kid near). He emphasized that he is the one who tells them, not others unless necessary. He also goes to therapy, and avoids all situations where he might be alone with a child. He has a kind of complex rubric and a script (and also tells them where to look it up).

    He also cautioned that if the boyfriend does not tell Kathy the boyfriend is not

    1. accepting his past crime and
    2. recognizing the harm he has done and
    3. recognizing his full responsibility for the choice to do the crime and
    4. high risk for repetition.

    Reply ↓
    1. Boof*

      Thank you – someone like this I believe is actually reformed. NO WAY they want to take any chances with anything, and they’re always going to have to make sure to avoid any temptation/misunderstanding/whatever you want to call it because that is not something to eff around with on any level.

      Reply ↓
    2. The Kulprit*

      Your friend sounds like the addicts I know who have really healed. They accept what they did and take action to ensure that they don’t do it again.

      Jerry sounds like the ones I know who I don’t trust unsupervised in my home.

      Reply ↓
    3. All het up about it*

      I just want to thank you for asking this person and for them sharing this. It’s a really good way to lay out how those 20% that don’t repeat in the first year must think and act to get there.

      Reply ↓
    4. Smurfette*

      He must have a huge amount of courage to have these conversations. If this was me, I would have moved to a cabin in the woods where my only neighbours were bears and raccoons, so that I never had to face another human being.

      I hope he is able to continue on his path.

      Reply ↓
  50. The Kulprit*

    Agree with Alison 100%. Give your coworker the opportunity to inform Kathy herself, but if she doesn’t — you tell Kathy. Show her the registry entry. Not to be maximally crude or upsetting, but to leave no ambiguity about the nature and severity of what is being talked about.

    The fact that this information has not immediately been shared with Kathy about who is in contact with her child is, in itself, a red flag.

    If Sally responds with drama, do not do her or Jerry the favor of not naming what happened. “I informed Kathy that a convicted sex offender (and I had proof) had access with her child. That is why Sally is mad.”

    Let her marshal her, “Pro not telling parents about sex offenders spending time near their kids” side of the argument.

    Reply ↓
    2. Boof*

      If it’s verified, lw knows kathy’s number and knows kathy does indeed have a minor child, they should really tell kathy themselves asap. There’s no way I’d rely on someone else to do the right thing here.

      Reply ↓
    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Just tell Kathy yourself. NOW !
      Do NOT procrastinate or delay by trying to persuade Beth to tell her, or Beth promising and then delaying.
      Don’t prioritise your friendship with a coworker over the safety of a child.
      Don’t prioritise avoiding conflict or embarassment.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Kulprit*

        You know, you’re right. Just do it.

        In my head, I was allowing an EOD Telling Kathy deadline. But, if she could be trusted to do this, she would have by now.

        I hate this for OP

        Reply ↓
      2. allathian*

        Yes, seconding.

        Protecting the child is the only thing that matters here. There may be drama, but that’s the fault of Sally and Beth for not telling Kathy in the first place.

        Of course, the real nightmare scenario here is if Kathy decides that Sally’s relationship and keeping things quiet is more important than Lucy’s safety. So tell his parole officer as well. Generally convicted sex offenders can’t hang out with kids without breaking parole.

        Reply ↓
  51. Texas Teacher*

    If you know a child or other vulnerable person is in contact with a predator you have a moral and in some places a legal obligation* to make sure their parents/guardians are informed. If the parents/guardians do not take action, you must report the situation to the authorities – both CPS and if possible the parole department. I also suggest alerting the school about the situation if possible.

    *I live in Texas where all mentally competent adults are mandated reporters. Traditional mandated reporters have more penalties for not reporting but everyone over 18 who is competent is a mandated reporter.

    Reply ↓
  52. Head Sheep Counter*

    I don’t think I could work with Beth given her poor judgement. That she told someone about this says, maybe she’s redeemable but… I think Sally’s sister is in eminent danger. Its not an if its a when situation and its also an explanation for why (why he’s dating her). Women who invite this into their lives make me very sad and very very angry when they include others let alone set up potential victims. I will never ever understand it.

    The very worst thing that could come from telling mom is that this dude’s offense isn’t as offensive as it could be and he’s run off from having access to a child.

    As for this comment section… I’m sorry Allison. Monitoring this has to be painful. Although it is insightful as to the distance we have yet to go on sex abuse and the affiliated crimes. Thank you for your work.

    Reply ↓
  55. J.*

    I am upset but not at all surprised by the comments on this thread. People, the fact that there’s even a debate going on about this is WHY child sexual abuse continues to happen. Look, as someone who grew up with a pedophile on both my maternal and paternal side of the family, I am telling anyone and everyone: THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THIS. There is no “maybe”, or “what if”, or “but” in a situation with a pedophile. You must tell everyone involved that you can reach, and you must tell yesterday. The vast majority of people, when confronted by something this awful, will hem and haw and think about every element of plausible deniability that they can. It’s a very human response and a desperate wish to avoid confrontation over something very ugly. But damage from sexual molestation is the gift that keeps giving for generations, and it is insidious at reinforcing silence. Speaking out comes at a great risk — you will probably lose friendships and familial relationships, but speaking out to protect a child is the most right thing that you can do in this life. The damage that abused kids sustain from pedophiles is incalculable.

    I was not molested, but my cousins and my sister were. I spoke out, lost a lot of family relationships (did I really want relationships with people who tolerated pedophilia? No, I did not! This degree of tolerance extends to tolerance for all kinds of other disastrous behavior.) I saw my cousins go right back to their abusive father. They went on to have daughters, and so it went unto the next generation. My relationship with my own parents, who did not act, is permanently scarred and I still wrestle with it at 50. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, and had the saddest outcome of anything I’ve ever done. I’ll never get over the stripping of my innocence and the shock at how people around me tried to bury this crime. But I’m at peace with my decision. I was a teacher, too, and I always hope that the students for whom I reported had better outcomes than in my own family. But whatever the outcome, you have to try. Tell Kathy. Tell her NOW.

    (I just watched the docudrama “Into the Fire” on U.S. Netflix yesterday. If you want to see how people turn a blind eye, this two-part series will show you. It is not for the faint of heart.)

    TELL.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

      Thank you, for doing that and for posting this.

      While there may be occasional cases of “the record check found stuff about a different John Smith, I’ve never been to Virginia in my life,” this clearly isn’t one of them. If it was, either (a) Sally wouldn’t have mentioned it, or (b) LW would have been told something like “she told me that her boyfriend has the same name as a convicted pedophile, and he even looks a bit like the other guy. He showed me proof that they’re different people, but he wanted me to know about it.”

      None of that is the case here. The hypothetical mistaken-identity innocent man wouldn’t forget to mention that, and hypothetical-innocent’s girlfriend wouldn’t tell people that her new boyfriend was a convicted pedophile.

      Reply ↓
  56. Snarkastic*

    I will never understand why someone would willingly date a convicted pedophile. I will never understand a lot of things, but this one feels much simpler than physics.

    Reply ↓
    1. Smurfette*

      That’s the first thing I thought when I read this. I just don’t know what redeeming features a person could have that would offset this.

      Reply ↓
    2. Song*

      I’m pretty sure this is why people are hung up on whether it was a Romeo & Juliet situation or something — it couldn’t have been an actually serious offense if someone’s still willing to date him.

      Reply ↓
  57. Jake*

    I’m 100% in the camp of you need to either convince the roommate to tell, or you need to tell, and I am the father of a five year old girl.

    All of that said, I do feel a level of sadness that there are some things that are so awful that there just isn’t any recovery possible. If this person was 18 and molesting a 5 year old, they will be treated as a predator forever, even if they manage to reform.

    Of course we have to put the needs/protection of victim ahead of a predator’s well being, but it still makes me sad.

    Reply ↓
    1. Smurfette*

      > If this person was 18 and molesting a 5 year old, they will be treated as a predator forever, *even if they manage to reform*.

      Unfortunately there’s no definite evidence that they have reformed, and even if they have, there’s no guarantee that they will manage to stay reformed. Alcoholics have stayed sober for 20 years and then fallen off the wagon.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jake*

        Agreed, and we have to assume that they will do it again. It’s still sad.

        10000000x more sad for the victim, but just sad overall.

        Reply ↓
  58. Raida*

    I would just tell Kathy.
    Yeah I’d make up a story where I was bored and googling the names of coworkers, their pets, their girlfriends and boyfriends *but* I’d tell her what was easy to find online, and give her the
    link to check it herself to be sure.
    I’d say “This sucks, and I hope I got something wrong, but I have to show you this in case it is what it looks like.”
    It’s *her kid* so it’s *her* that needs to know and make a call.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      And if she doesn’t make the call to protect her child, calling child protective services and the parole officer is the right thing to do. Lots of parents turn a blind eye and allow abuse to happen to their kids.

      Reply ↓
  60. kitandkat*

    Maybe this is extreme, but I also think it could be justified: non-emergency police number or CPS. If this guy is truly convicted, he’s probably not legally supposed to be around kids, could have a parole officer, etc.

    Reply ↓
  61. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

    Predators don’t just groom their victims, they also groom their supporters.
    I think it is hard to come to grips with just how commonplace pedophilia is, but it is commonplace and it destroys lives.
    Dear LW, please speak to Kathy and tell her you have heard that her daughter’s boyfriend is a convicted pedophile, and you believe that she, Kathy, would want to know this. Give her a copy of the online record.
    I hope that she doesn’t already know, and is unconcerned- that would be a whole other mess.

    Reply ↓
    1. Gentle Reader*

      Lizzie, this is a GREAT point. They do indeed groom their supporters to create yet another barrier to anyone believing that the abuser is really an abuser. The manipulation and gaslighting does its work over time to sow doubts about what is happening.

      Reply ↓
  62. Smurfette*

    I just discovered that the sex offender registry in my country is NOT accessible to the public but only to employers in certain sectors:

    “The register gives employers in the public or private sectors such as schools; crèches and hospitals the right to check that the person being hired is fit to work with children or mentally disabled people.”

    I’m horrified.

    Reply ↓
  63. Gust of wind*

    Some time ago I read about introducing the word “pedocriminal” as a way to distinguish between between the pedophiles who are people who don’t hurt children because they are doing their best to work on themselves and know that fulfilling their urges would hurt children and they don’t want that, and pedophiles who did/do hurt children. I think that distinction is great, because it supports non criminal pedophiles in their journey of keeping children safe from them. Also in my native language we distinguish between “primary pedophiles” and “secondary pedophiles”. With “primary” beeing solely attracted to children and “secondary” beeing attracted to children and adults. And I read that most pedocriminals are actually secondary pedophiles. Many pedophiles never hurt children, because they are working on themselves. The person referred to is a convicted pedocriminal and Kathy should be warned, because in the past he was willing to and did hurt children!
    I really hope I don’t have to change my name after this comment! I do think children have to be protected from pedophiles and pedocriminals, but I think we should distinguish between bad people and people with an illness that are fighting to treat themselves.

    Reply ↓
    1. Gust of wind*

      And I think it actually can make it safer for children. They might be able to disclose to people close to them that they are pedophiles, but would never be pedocriminals. So the people who know can be kind and supportive, but also take safetymeasures. So the not criminal pedophiles are not asked to get in uncomfortable/risky situations and they don’t have to make up excuses to remove themselves/avoid these situations.

      Reply ↓
    2. New Jack Karyn*

      I agree that we need to do a lot better about developing effective treatments. Non-offenders should be able to disclose their urges to a therapist and go into a treatment protocol–without necessarily having the police called.

      Studies show that different types of offender have different recidivism rates–there has to be some reason for that. If researchers can figure out what factors influence likelihood to re-offend, that seems like it would lead to something useful.

      Reply ↓
  64. ElliottRook*

    There seems to be a lot of discussion of who’s been told, who says they have information, who needs to be notified…

    Nah. This is a situation where LW should call the police with an anonymous tip. “I happen to know that Jerry has been convicted of [specific crimes as listed on the registry] and now has access to Lucy,” give whatever information is necessary, and request a welfare check/investigation into whether anything has happened with Lucy.

    The potential office drama is all secondary and unimportant. When a child’s safety is on the line, the only reasonable option is going nuclear.

    Reply ↓
    1. New Jack Karyn*

      That could take days for the police/CPS to follow up. Because right now, there’s no evidence that he *has* harmed Lucy, so the report might get back-burnered. Tell Kathy, so the child’s parent has all the information to make her decisions.

      Reply ↓
  65. Lilac*

    In terms of informing authorities there was no mention of whether anyone seems to think that Kathy’s child is currently being harmed. But saying nothing to the mum directly or hoping that someone will pass that information on to her is just dangerous for the kid in the long run.

    And I don’t say that lightly. I currently live in a state in Australia where it is actually a criminal offence for ANY ADULT (not just mandatory reporters) not to disclose to authorities that you have a reasonable belief that a child under 16 has been s*xually assaulted.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS