Alice Evans-Ioan Gruffudd

[Notatallanamechange]

In court this week, think this is the last part of their legal stuff? Anyway, what has really struck me with this is how the Daily Mail have been complicit in her narrative and the abuse he gets. It’s came out in the court she has made 30k from them, selling her stories. I’m aware it’s an absolute rag, but paying someone with an DVRO and running their stories, in an attempt to paint their victim in a negative light is surely low, even by their standards?

The fact that the judge is delaying on the DVRO makes me wonder whether he will attach financial penalties to any alimony or make her pay back monies.

I don’t know if that would stop her.

Because what people really want on this thread is a pile on towards someone who has a differing opinion or view. As has been pointed out this is a discussion forum so you will have people with differing thoughts but I think some people are itching for me to say something so they can respond with obvious anger and scratch that itch.

I suspect that she will continue and then try to gaslight everyone and claim ignorance that she didn't realise she'd done anything wrong. I'd imagine that Ioan has been reluctant to bring charges because of his children and the way Alice would use it against him. Can't you imagine it "daddy's sending me to prison because I only text and asked him a question" said in hysterical screaming tones.

But at some point he'll have to say enough is enough. Especially if he has the law on his side.

Yes, I have to say I’m sceptical that she will stop her abuse and harassment of Ioan and Bianca, but time will tell I guess!

She was always like it. This is from 2020, before Ioan had even seen the light left.

The "best interests of the child" laws control child support - it's not something that can ever be agreed in, for example, a pre nup. It's also rather difficult to settle as a "lump sum" given the factors that the courts use to calculate support can cause amounts to be changed depending on a parent's salary and also the amount of time they spend with the children. So, for example, there is usually no way of knowing what the salary of the parents may be in the future, or if the parents may, for example, have any other children in future (and those children are as entitled, of course, to their best interests - including financial support interests) being protected by the courts as the children who are already in existence at the time any child support orders are made. Happy to explain if you need a further example, though I would suggest you read the California court system's own "self help" guidance directly if you are interested in learning more: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/child-support there is even a "child support calculator" provided so you can see how the different factors might work.

Typically child support would continue to be paid on a monthly basis up until the child turns 18 and graduates from high school, or turns 19 - whichever happens first. So, if a child turns 18 in March 2026, and graduates from high school in June 2026, support would stop on their graduation date in June. If the child does not graduate from high school while they are age 18 then support stops when they turn 19. There are exceptions of course: some children decide to become "legally emancipated" from their parents (you may recall some child actors going down that route) in which case support obligations cease - but those are rare cases. Some children may get married young - in which case, again, parental support obligations would cease. Children who are incapacitated/disabled and will be unable to support themselves as adults may have support awarded indefinitely. And, of course, there is nothing to stop the parents from agreeing to continue their support obligations beyond those mandated by California state law. So, for example, you will often see parents making agreements relating to support if a child decides to attend university.

What will muddy the waters is a situation in which a parent "pre pays" or overpays support payments in advance of the normal schedule. This is something that ideally should be avoided because there is always a danger that those funds could be misallocated or misspent, or that the receiving party may disagree that the funds were actually child support prepayments etc etc. Typically it would be only something that should be done with provisions made such that the funds cannot be misappropriated by someone else. Ideally the the money should be placed into a "trust fund" of sorts such that the money can only be drawn upon/released each month. Avoiding any ambiguity and making sure everything is documented in detail is essential when dealing with these matters.

Well i'm not itching for you to say something. I just wondered why you were so reluctant, but your choice.
Don't take yourself too seriously.

The thing is, without having read the court documents (which you obviously haven’t) any opinion is based on what Alice has told the Daily Mail anyway (as per the subject of this thread). So there would be no real point having a pile on as you have limited knowledge of the facts of the case, and that knowledge is predominantly based on the one sided view given to the press by Alice.

@Caligirl80 thank you for that comprehensive answer ❤️.

Criminal charges can only be brought by the government. Violating the terms of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order can cause criminal charges to be brought each and every time that DVRO is violated. A DVRO is still in place against AE, so it's entirely possible that criminal charges could be brought at any time if the authorities believe there is a reason to do so. Note that in this case IG has been reporting violations of the DVRO for a while now from the looks of it - so we will see how the Court rules in terms of next steps.

For anyone who doesn't understand what a Domestic Violence Restraining Order is in California, or how courts issue them - and enforce them - the California court system has a "self help" page that provides a general explanation: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/DV-restraining-order.

Of course they can do this but as I said before given the length of time and the apparent times she has , for want of a better word, broken the DARVO why haven’t criminal charges been brought? Does anyone know?

This is precisely why I think the law and the court case needs to run its course. Public option will hold no sway over the judge. He will look at facts and evidence and apply the Californian law to his findings. Just to add of course some people would pile on as evidenced by Nickynack’s now deleted comment.

No idea why my comment was deleted as I didn’t breach any guidelines and certainly didn’t “pile on”.

The California court system is overloaded. That's the reason it's taken so long to get to this point. It is overworked, underfunded, and understaffed. It may be the case that the criminal authorities were waiting on the court to make various rulings about the DVRO before bringing related criminal charges - but of course we won't know either way. It looks like AE has been arrested before relating to a breach of the DVRO - unclear why that matter was dropped. It may be something that the Court discusses in its findings and decision on whether the DVRO should be extended and, if so, for how long. The Court has obviously been given a variety of examples of breaches of the DVRO (including AE taking photos in the courtroom - which is a separate offense per California court rules) - we will see what action the Court decides to take with respect to how to deal with those breaches. It seems fair to say that the Court has taken way too long to deal with this situation.

Please, enough of the hashing over board rules, deleted comments and mod policies. It’s really, really boring.

I suspect much of the outcome of this case will be unsatisfying, since Alice hasn’t produced records and will publicly lean on that plausible deniability and custody is unlikely to change despite massive issues with the current arrangement (the fact that the eldest is neither in school nor therapy is hair-raising). But since finances have been such a theme in the ongoing slander, I really hope the overpayments are in some way addressed. Yes, he’ll have to continue paying child support, but it would be so depressing if there’s an effort to restart the clock at the end of the trial and just ignore all the financial abuse. (And child abuse - I really can’t believe that she kept telling her kids they would be homeless and their father was refusing to send money.)

The judge needs to adopt a FAFO policy with Alice, she seems incapable of reasonable behaviour. She would destroy herself and her kids, just to ‘get even’ with Ioan for daring to leave her.

She has a group of supporters. Are they oddballs or are they just egging her on for laughs ?

Well you must have otherwise they wouldn’t have deleted it.

Tedious main character energy. Go and try to pick a fight elsewhere.

This is an interesting discussion on Alice and the Daily Mail. I hope Ioan and Bianca prosecute for misleading reporting. But I expect they have had enough of courts and just want to continue with their lives.

I agree with you - the extremely one sided reporting situation begs many questions. Particularly given the fact that there is no effort made to actually acknowledge that fact in these DM posts: they aren't written as "opinion pieces" by a writer who discloses that they were/are friends with AE. And the DM, of course, doesn't disclose when it may have paid for any parts of the story/interview/photos (and whether they set up the photos with the person in those photos. I get that jouralists need to be able to protect their sources. But at the same time readers of newspapers rely on those newspapers to make an attempt at reporting facts that provide the reader with the ability to make up their own minds - regardless of the conclusions the journalist/newspaper may draw from them. And in this case that just does not seem to be happening. The DM is failing to report on really vile behaviours (including utterly failing to report on abusive communications, and abusive behaviour even in the courtroom itself.

The other thing to bear in mind, again, is that there have been pap photos publishd by the DM that have the minor childrens' faces featured in those photos with absolutely no pixelation. The DM has to abide by laws that protect minors - and one of the key ones is that minor children can only have their faces published in the UK when a parent has consented to that publication. So, for those photos to be used, one of their parents had to have given permission...and it seems unlikely IG was that parent given those photos didn't include him. Draw your own conclusions on whether that is good parenting or not on the part of whichever parent gave the permission.

Dont be so ridiculous. I’m not picking a fight with anyone quite the contrary really. If a comment breaks their rules and is deleted that is not my fault or problem.

I’ve never seen this many posts reported/removed on other Mumsnet threads, it doesn’t feel random either

It’s a way to kill discussion. Only way through it is to ignore anything off-topic.

Weird how the DM is not covering this at all!

Wonder if they are in more trouble with the £30k payment than is known?