Sexual offending — structured clinical viva

Refuse the binary "is he safe?". Translate into residual risk of which sexual (and non-sexual) harms, to whom, under which conditions, with which mitigations, and with what uncertainty. Absolute safety is not a clinical product.[7]

Constructs. Sexual offences are legal. Pedophilic preference, if present, is clinical and may be persistent; it is not identical to all child sexual offending. Preferential deviance + antisocial facilitation raises concern more than either alone in metas.[1][4]

Tools. High static ranking is expected given history and will not vanish. Communicate associated group recidivism rates with humility. Dynamic gains (treatment completion, abstinence, self-management) and protective factors (housing, no child access, professional care) can support graduated community testing under conditions — not unrestricted release on goodwill.[2][3][6]

Formulation. Motivation–facilitation: assess residual sexual interest/preoccupation (motivation) and current facilitators (substances, access, attitudes, supervision gaps). Scenario example: further child sexual harm if unsupervised child access returns + sexual preoccupation + substance relapse. Mitigation: no child contact, drug/alcohol monitoring, continued offence-focused work, multi-agency oversight, rapid recall pathway if conditions break.[4]

Treatment. RNR intensity remains high initially. Psychological work continues or consolidates. WFSBP pharmacotherapy only if clear high-risk paraphilic disorder pathway with specialist monitoring — not automatic for every contact offence history.[5]

Report language. Method, sources, scenarios, recommendations, limits, review triggers. No invented statutes. Non-sensational clinical tone.[7]