Have we discussed the James Rhodes case?

There is no reason why this thread could not have gone in Chat, AIBU or In The News. OP however states " I can't immediately see a feminist angle but you are all clever so the right people to discuss this with." There are clever women and men on all the boards.

Unnecessarily nasty post, Lass.

I don't know; I would post here if I wanted a certain (I.e feminist) perspective, where people mostly were on the same wavelength as me. And the 'you are clever' as 'whereas I don't understand', rather than the rest of MN is stupid.

I think the only way I can understand this case from the mother's perspective is that it stems from family law issues (how can it not when you look at all the details) but because it concerns the impact on the son, against the right to publish (held by the father), it is a freedom of speech case.

I think upholding the right to publish is the right thing to do undoubtedly; and the judge has tried to keep the boy's welfare in mind by the secrecy surrounding the case and who the boy is.

I am also presuming that alongside concern because the son has various special needs (which will fairly well consume her life to support him) the Ruritania name implies a community where everyone knows everyone. But the father is in a different country, has enough time to write this book (not disputing it is a worthwhile book or the father's suffering), and disputes some of his son's diagnosis. None of that negates the man's experiences at all; or the fact that he has not had justice for the crimes against him; or that his achievement in becoming a concert pianist is worth telling - but there will be another story about the impact on his marriage; the wellbeing of his son - and the fact that this even came to court.

I don't know, H and I spent two years in litigation before tensions thawed and you do end up with different perspectives about cause and effect, and if you end up in court, I can only imagine this gets worse.

There is no feminist angle to this at all. It's a little insulting to the many members of MN who never or only infrequently on FWR to post it here because the posters on here are all so clever.

I can't see any reason for agreeing to his wife's request not to publish.

The law comes into it, I assume, because all other forms of communication have broken down, but that is just a guess.

It is right that what has happened to him was described as serious sexual violence by the newspaper.

I can see where his ex is coming from - a couple that was together would presumably discuss and agree how to go through something like this with their child, the right age for it etc. It's unclear what the child already knows but this would certainly not be the way to find out.

The court has made the correct legal decision but I don't think her motivation was suppression of freedom of speech, which seems to be the narrative.

I think there must have been an awful break down in communication between him and his ex-wife and there is probably a lot more to it than his memoirs. The fact that he disputes medical diagnosis makes me think they have different views about the child's wellbeing.

I think of course Rhodes has the right to speak about his own experience, but I can also see the view that the person who is primary carer for a child with special needs would see her child as her main concern. My DS does not have Aspergers but ADHD and it is a constant balancing act to keep life manageable for him. There was probably a conversation to be had about what Rhodes' child might need in the way of support and how best to handle this situation - but if Rhodes refutes the diagnosis, that seems unlikely to have happened.

I don't know; H (we are separated) has always tried to ask what would work for DS, since things calmed down anyway after the split.

No idea. I think he was right to publish and speak about what had happened to him as a little boy.