AIBU To think the Family Court is not fit for purpose?

[Notwiththeseknees]

The Judge has seen fit to name Ellie Yarrow, the mother who has fled with her three year old son. Reading the heartbreaking letter from Ellie that her sister posted on Facebook, AIBU to think that this secretive court who are responsible for some dreadful decisions, is no longer fit for purpose.

www.facebook.com/1311698241/posts/10216464513147988/

To be honest I think going public has backfired on him as people are asking similar questions to others about the age difference and the power imbalance in the relationship.

If her side of the story is published he may get more than he bargained for in terms of challenges about his behaviour in all of this.

Ellie has done the wrong thing in fleeing but she’s done so based upon erroneous understanding of what all the legal stuff regarding her son meant, I would be my bottom dollar he has stirred much of this up to scare her.

I hope wherever she and Ollie are they are safe.

To be honest I think going public has backfired on him

Agreed. And I couldn't be happier about it, especially if it leads to a serious shakeup of the institutional tools that hurt the vulnerable

Delores that's how the law works for anyone regarding holidays when parents are separated. Unless you are named as the resident parent in a court order you need the other parent's permission to go abroad on holiday. Also, if you don't make a child available for court ordered contact you are in breach of the order.

I'm sure she knew when she went on holiday she didn't have permission. If he had refused permission, she could have gone to court herself and would have been given permission. The court would have agreed it was in the child's interests to have that holiday. They brought her back because she went without permission.

I'm not on the side of the father here but if you aren't going to work with the system you aren't doing yourself any favours in the long run.

Yes, that was one obvious issue with her letter (the holiday) and the other was some misunderstandings about the role of the guardian for the children. Also we don't know if she wrote the letter and if it is all made up unless we had a handwriting expert verify it etc.

It's possible the holiday was booked before the access arrangements were put in place. It's not clear from the letter when they separated or when the holiday was.

Yes, but you cannot take a child abroad without the other parent's (or the court's) consent when you are divorcing or after.

I'm not sure they are divorced- I don't think they were married.

It just shows what a shit he is. Putting his own ego first.

It shows that he knew how to use the system. Going on holiday without permission was one down to her, one up to him. These kinds of men use every opportunity and unfortunately he's done it to the extent that she's put herself in a position now where she can only lose. I don't think it matters to him that he's being accused of DV etc because ultimately he will feel like he's won if she gets found because there will be issues for her following it.

@sugarhunnyicedtea you just need to have children, be separated from their other parent and not agree with child arrangements to end up in court.

Oh and I know cases of physically abusive fathers who have never touched their children. In fact in two cases their children chose specifically to live with them and have also chosen to maintain contact with them as adults even though they have a choice not to. Yes I think it was and is odd but I don't know their mothers who they said were more abusive.

I still don’t understand all this “if her side of the story gets published”. It is published. There’s a 9(?) page letter full of accusations written allegedly by her (a claim supported by her sister). Her side is out and clear for everyone to see.

I would be extremely surprised if a judge ordered the return of the child from the holiday if it was the first time she’d tried it. The fact that a guardian was being appointed and that the judge felt she’s emotionally harming the child also suggests that this was not a straightforward case.

And she doesn’t do herself any favours by saying she supports 50/50 with a man she paints as a monster.

It shows that he knew how to use the system. Going on holiday without permission was one down to her, one up to him. These kinds of men use every opportunity

She broke the law and he’s the one in the wrong..?

I didn't say he was the one in the wrong MissMalice. If you read my earlier post I said she was wrong for going on holiday without permission as she could have got permission through the courts. He simply used it to his advantage. He didn't care about shortening the child's holiday. He cared about ruining things for her and making her look bad.

You have no idea that was his motivation at all. If she had breached the order, he had every right to raise that at the hearing, particularly if it showed a pattern of behaviour. The court deemed it necessary for her to change her booking. As I said, it’s unlikely it was the first time as courts tend to give the benefit of the doubt several times before making a decision like that.

And he might have been worreid the family might arrange another "holiday" and whisk the child away so was rightly concerned about this first breach of the rules. Imagine for women if the father of our children took children out of the country without our permission. This is why we have these kinds of rules.

The courts are already massively stacked in favour of the mother. The courts would bot be taking action unless she was abusing the system which she is.

She needs to be found and the courts to due process unless you think courts should not have that power ir think parents should be able to run off with there child (aka a father taking there child to or do you think only mothers should get that privilege)

I hope she’s in another country with her son where she can’t be sent back

The whole case is very sad and the only loser will be the child.

I agree there are two sides. I think he is a shit but she hasn't exactly covered herself with glory by running off.

I still say she agreed /offered 50/50 because she felt this would appease him. She was wrong as he threw that back in her face.

"she doesn’t do herself any favours by saying she supports 50/50 with a man she paints as a monster."

Yes she could always go for supervised contact only, that always ends well and no one ever whines about women stopping dads from seeing their kids at all. 🙄 /s

Lose lose situation.

As soon as I saw the age gap between them, and that she would have been quite a young mum, I began to question the father's motives. Prejudiced of me I know, but statistically...

^Yet so many people on MN advocate large age gap relationships. Ironic isn’t it?

You can eye roll at me but it isn’t a reasonable position to argue simultaneously that someone is a danger to your child and also that you’re happy for that person to spend significant amounts of time with the child. To do so is to cast major doubt over your allegations and also your ability to keep your child safe from harm.

I find the mother’s family’s actions since the child went missing as very worrying to be honest.

Missmalice
There is so much in that letter that conflicts itself that you really have to question almost everything. It’s clearly the case there was no care proceedings and the fact she says she wanted the father to have 50/50 care yet makes such serious allegations tells all.

The eye roll wasn't specifically at you miss, (sorry that could have been clearer!) just at the point that it's clear whichever she did she would be vilified for it. Either she wants him to have adequate time with his kids and as such is putting them at risk, or she doesn't let want him seeing them at all/alone and she is guilty of parental alienation.

I'd hazard a guess that in such a situation, letting an (alleged) abuser have them part of the time could come from the (alleged) abuse suffered in the first place. A way to placate them - sort of an extended "walking on eggshells" to try to keep them happy? Cause if they're happy the split will be easier.

Anyway, I haven't actually stated or even formed an opinion on the specific case here - I do not want to read the letter tbh. I'm talking about it generally.

The problem is evidence. Courts can’t act without evidence. There’s nothing really in the letter than seems to suggest the boy was at risk of harm and that she had evidence of that. Having just read the letter again she actually speaks of wanting to move away with the letter.

I think everyone involved with families post-separation should be fully trained on parental alienation. There are clear markers for it. If judges, lawyers, social workers etc received proper training on it, it would be easier for them to see which was PA and which was actually DV. Both scenarios are hugely damaging to a child. It’s important that services get it right.