This is absolutely stomach-churning.
You know when you hear something that's so wrong, so outstandingly bad, that you think to yourself, "There has to be something I'm not seeing that would make the situation slightly more acceptable"? But the more you find out, the worse it becomes.
I think this story is just like that.
A 20-year-old babysitter had sex with an 11-year-old boy, was arrested and went to trial — but she won't be serving jail time because the father of the boy defended her and the alledged rape.
According to The Swindon Advertiser, Jade Hatt (now 21) babysat the boy on six or seven occasions. Although Hatt has denied it, there have been claims that she had a previous sexual relationship with the father (who can't be named due to legal protection).
The first offense is that the Dad may have slept with the babysitter first, though Hatt has denied it. But she does admit to having feelings for the boy.
"A few times we were just getting to know each other. I was cooking his meals and keeping out of his way while he played Xbox," Hatt explained. "But one time I kissed him and he kissed me back or the other way around."
Hatt claimed that she was in love with the boy and that his father had instigated the relationship. "I got a text from his dad saying, 'He really likes you and he wants your number.'" Things went on from there.
The second offense was the dad trying to get the babysitter and his son together. Was he testing the babysitter's loyalty to him, or was he like one of those fathers who arrange for their (of age) sons to be devirginized by a prostitute? If so, 11 is way too young for that.
This is troubling on many levels.
One day, when the boy had a day off from school, Hatt arrived at approximately 11:30 AM and found him laying down. Instead of suggesting that they play a video game or take a walk, Hatt climbed on top of him, removed her clothes, and then took off the boy's.
Sexual intercourse took place, and by all accounts it lasted about 45 seconds. "He told me he was older and I believed that. I thought he was 16 or 17 because he's taller and acts older," Hatt said.
The father called the police after he found a hickey on the boy's neck, and texts from Hatt were diverted to the father's phone, revealing what had happened. I think the father did this to avoid any culpability on his part.
When Hatt was arrested, she told officers that the boy told her he was 15, even though she knew his age (as his father had told her). Besides, why would the boy have needed a babysitter if he was a teenager?
Rob Ross, Hatt's lawyer, said his client was a small, immature, and vulnerable woman, who had a hard upbringing.
Hatt had spent two years in the hospital with leukemia between the ages of five and seven. Ross went on to point out that his client clearly didn't operate at the level of a 20-year-old, and seemed like less of an adult compared to the boy.
No one has brought this up, but I have to wonder if Hatt is a bit mentally challenged. Was Hatt more a victim than a perpetrator, being manipulated by the father?
The father told the court, "I know he told her he was 15. He looks older than his years. He's sex-mad. He would've been fully up for this experience and in many ways sees it as a notch on his belt and is totally unaffected by it."
It seems like a heart to heart talk with your son might be a good idea, Dad.
At Hatt's sentencing, Judge Tim Mousley QC (Queen's Counsel) said that the case was so exceptional that he could go beyond the usual sentencing guidelines.
"Having read everything before me, it was quite clear that he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old, so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you," Judge Mousley said.
Hatt received a six-month suspended prison sentence, and was ordered to register as a sex offender for seven years and must not come into contact with young boys without proper supervision.
This is incredible creepy and just wrong, on all levels. "Mature" or not, the young boy was eleven, and that constitutes rape.