Man had a ‘profoundly wrong’ sexual encounter – and said it was ‘wonderful’

22 comments

1. >A social worker has been jailed for engaging in a sexual encounter with a ‘vulnerable’ woman.

   >Martin Rosenfield, 62, was sentenced to six months behind bars after admitting that his behaviour amounted to misconduct in a public office. Rosenfield, who worked for Salford council, did not resist when his victim instigated sexual activity after he attended her home.

   >He has since lost his job, his home and his marriage, Manchester Crown Court heard. Rosenfield was a ‘contact worker’ employed by the council to supervise ‘contact sessions’ between the victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and her children. The pair had each other’s phone numbers and ‘wisely or not’, Rosenfield began ending their messages with an ‘x’, meaning a kiss.

   >The day before the sexual encounter, they had texted each other. The victim told Rosenfield ‘thank you for another great contact session’. About an hour later, the victim received an unsolicited image of a man’s genitals from an unknown number.

   >The messages became sexualised and the victim also replied with sexual messages. She came to believe that the unknown man was actually Rosenfield.

   >But enquiries proved that it wasn’t, and the incident was described as an ‘unfortunate and remarkable coincidence’. The following day, the victim texted Rosenfield to say she had ‘give up’ and that she wouldn’t be attending another meeting.

   >He urged her to not ‘give up’ and asked if he could attend her home. He did, and when inside they kissed and she performed oral sex on him. Afterwards, she texted Rosenfield saying ‘that was so good’ and Rosenfield said ‘that was wonderful, thank you’.

   >The police were alerted, and Mr Rosenfield was prosecuted. Rosenfield, from Bury, pleaded guilty to a charge of engaging in misconduct in a public office.

   >But he disputed elements of the prosecution’s case. He denied that he had instigated sexual contact with the victim, and insisted it was actually her who had instigated it.

   >Following a trial of issue, where both parties gave evidence, Judge Nicholas Dean KC ruled that it was the victim who had instigated the sexual activity. He also ruled that the victim had expressed a sexual interest in Rosenfield.

   >Defending, Dan Calder described the episode as a ‘single, isolated incident’ with a ‘highly unusual’ and ‘perhaps unique set of events’. Mr Calder said Rosenfield had worked for himself for many years before taking a job at the council. He said Rosenfield and his former wife had fostered 16 children and had three children himself.

   >He appealed to the judge to spare sending Rosenfield to jail, highlighting his lack of previous criminal convictions and arguing he had ‘significant personal mitigation’.

   >But Judge Dean said that there were ‘public policy reasons’ why offenders convicted of misconduct in a public office should be sent to prison. “These circumstances seem to me to apply equally to social workers as to police officers and others,” he said.

   Well, that’s one of the more unusual cases I’ve seen

2. Corny click-bait title for what is a bog standard abuse of power case, and not a very sensational one at that.

3. All the men in here asking how the vulnerable woman is a victim?

   Are yous fucking dumb or what?

4. Incels out in force to protect the poor man from a vulnerable woman.

   I swear this sub is like a cesspit now.

5. Would this be classed as rape? Because it seems consensual but obviously it’s a vulnerable person so that doesn’t matter.

6. Children & Families Social Worker here.

   This is the cardinal fuckin sin, it doesn’t matter if a service user instigates something, you do not reciprocate and don’t meet them alone again.

   I get fuckin stressed if an adult in work tries to give me a gift, never mind tries to initiate a sexual encounter.

   The people we assess for contact tend to be pretty vulnerable, the nature of going through a contact plan/rehab plan can worsen some vulnerability due to the pressure. And some people will try to do anything if they’re trying to regain care of their kids.

   Enough people hate us as is without more shit like this

7. Yeah pretty fucked up. The important thing here is that this person has a strong say on whether this person gets to see their kids or not. 

   Allowing this kind of situation is strictly forbidden because 1) you can find someone coerced into giving head for fear of not seeing their kids again or even worse 2) someone who shouldn’t see their kid getting access because social worker doesn’t want to lose head rights. 

   This bit was particularly sad “The following day, the victim texted Rosenfield to say she had ‘give up’ and that she wouldn’t be attending another meeting.”

   It sounds like at this point she’d already complained about the dick pics without a successful resolution so probably felt pretty powerless.

8. The prison sentence for this does seem absolutely pointless. I don’t see a benefit when it seems from the context he is in no way a danger to members of the public, and because of the specificity of his case, it in no way sets an example.

   Yes, it was an abuse of power, and yes, he should have known better, but prison time isn’t the only sentence available. Why not community service to rehabilitate him?

9. The amount of loser incel weirdos defending the man here is gross.

10. Just a thought for anyone trying to defend this person.

    For this to be considered ‘not his fault’ you basically have to assert that he was incapable of saying no, because certainly he should have said no. 

    So basically your statement is equivalent to “it’s ok for people who can’t say no to temptation to be in positions of power and influence.” 

    Maybe think about whether that’s really what you want to say. 

11. I don’t think people (particularly men who are defending this creep) seem to realize that yes, women who are separated from their children because of substance abuse/mental health issues do actually have social workers and case workers. My brother’s “baby mama” (hate that word) has both problems and she has a social worker who is not the same social worker her son has. It’s up to this social worker to observe her and decide whether she can have supervised visits with her son. She is female, but imagine if he was male and decided “nah, you aren’t in the right place to see your kids because you didn’t blow me”.

    I think people are overlooking that part of the story. Before there was any sexual contact beyond him putting x’s on the end of messages (inappropriate btw) he sent her unsolicited pornographic images of another man. After that she said she didn’t want to attend any more meetings and he pressured her to do so. That doesn’t sound like she was pursuing him to me. Perfectly normal, well adjusted women do not lose custody of their children like this. He took advantage and I’m glad he paid for it with his career and marriage.

12. So you’re there to supervise her visit with the kids, and you’re having sexual contact after/during this meeting? Regardless of when it happened Thats just downright wrong in his position. The whole men v women/incel argument in these comments is just stupid, atleast try and have a civil debate; its a Saturday fucking morning people.

13. What he did was wrong, there’s no disputing that. But 6 months in prison is absolutely wild and the article absolutely doesn’t describe why she’s a vicitm

    She’s the one that initiated sex, so you can’t say that he’s intentionally abused his position

    From her perspective though it’s kinda fucked. She’s under the impressive that he initiated it because she’s having sexual conversations with someone she thought was him. So it’s technically she initiated it but whoever sent the dick pic actually initiated it kinda situation

14. This reminds me of that little Britain sketch “and unfortunately, a part of my body, entered his”

15. Doesn’t surprise me one bit. If anyone here has actually needed the help of social services at any point, you will be fully aware of how awful they are. They seemingly let just anyone deal with serious topics such as child abuse now.

16. Old bloke got your cock sucked ? Not allowed – straight to jail!

    Obviously I’m joking a bit….but it does seem a slight overreaction no wonder our prisons are too full.

17. The defence acting as if her instigating things makes it much better

    like ok? The vulnerable woman instigated the acts? And you, the non vulnerable social worker reciprocated? We need to stop treating men as if they’re incapable of rejecting sexual advances stg. Thankfully the judge wasn’t having it

18. The social worker could not read this women’s mind and thus could not really be sure of her motivations. He could not be 100% sure that his power over her was not a factor in the exchange. The truth of the situation (consensual sex) does not matter in terms of the wrongness of his decision. All that matters is that he did not know the truth at the time.

    Also, how did he know that she would not try to blackmail him? What he did was profoundly stupid and/or extremely immoral. We have laws against this kind of thing for very good reasons.

19. I’m noticing an incel and Tate-bro shaped pattern in this thread.

20. People are missing the most critical part of this case I think. This is not a man who had an unwise contact with a service user he has no significant influence over – this is a vulnerable adult and He has direct control over Her keeping her children or not. It was well within his power to not go ahead with the sexual contact and She could have easily been thinking “if I do this he’ll let me keep my children”.

    I work in the medical profession and I can assure you if I were consulting with a patient about their depression, and they started trying to pull my pants down, I would be pressing the alarm button 😵‍💫 I once had a patient insinuate they had feelings for me, She didn’t even directly state it, and it was a deeply uncomfortable experience to the point I formally discussed it with my colleagues and the best way forward.

    I’m sorry but sexual contact by a professional with a patient/client whom you are having professional contact with, is absolutely not acceptable, but even more egregious if any reasonable person can see they are vulnerable.

21. Like I said in the topic about the female prison officer regularly shagging the male inmate, you don’t fuck your ward. It’s unethical, and (if absolutely nothing else matters to you) not worth losing your job over.

    She might want you with the intensity of a thousand stars, but it’s a massive gamble, and the payoff isn’t worth losing your income–and by extension, damaging your quality of life at the very least.

22. Obviously this guy has done a bad thing, but “did not resist when his victim instigated sexual activity” is the weirdest fucking sentence I’ve ever read

Comments are closed.