Rebecca Minnock - on the run with child after court battle

[BreakingDad77]

Is this one of those cases we wont get to the bottom of as to whether she is someone with MH problems or scheming father driving her to them?

Mkz the court papers linked to above clearly show the history.

Pure ignorance mkz - how is she "clearly a good mother"?

What helped me after my split was remembering that neither mothers or fathers have rights - the child has rights. The parents have responsibilities.

I have to agree with Springalong on this one. I had good grounds to appeal an order, and wasn't granted permission. People were shocked by this, even legal professionals. The court system is designed to make life extremely difficult for litigant's in persons, and the appeal process is next to impossible if you don't know what you are doing. Furthermore, the law is currently on the side of fathers; guardians are assigned to cases to ensure that contact progresses how fathers want it to. In Rebecca's Minnock's case there was a guardian. It wouldn't have mattered what she had said in court, the views of the guardian will always prevail. Sadly she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

The primary focus is to promote 'as much contact as possible' with fathers, even regardless of if there is a history or violence and emotional abuse.

There are too many flaws in the family court system that allow injustice to happen. For many years fathers bore the brunt of this, hence father's rights campaigns. Sadly, now mothers are now facing the same injustice.

I think there needs to be more transparency and accountability, and children's best interests should take priority.

In some circumstances, it SHOULD be visitation rights. Despite my mum petitioning for divorce on DV grounds and my dad not contesting it, my dad got full custody of my sister and I! I don't think the courts are biased towards mothers.

Something mentioned earlier on in the thread - leaving a child unsupervised in the company of a known pedophile - regardless of whether he is a father of that child or whether he CURRENTLY poses a danger to the child - is frankly outrageous.

I don't see how removing a child from his mothers arms over an access issue alone is acceptable yet sometimes when real physical dangers exist to the child - nothing happens.

It's clear the mother has lost faith in the system. She is willing to risk everything to spend one more day with her son - it's clear she felt she was never going to be allowed to have contact with him again and running away was an act of desperation.

The question should be - how can we restore faith in the system and is the appeals process up to standard?

She isn't a litigant in person. She was represented by counsel in all hearings until she went into hiding (and so could not instruct lawyers).

And as, until one parent frustrated it, residency was shared on a 3/4 days per week split, the child wasn't being removed from an only home. Rather it was a process, over two years, of residency being moved to with the parent who was not frustrating contact with the other.

Plinky,

It is not clear that the mother has lost faith in the system. She has lost control, she has previously behaved in an extremely controlling way.

"One more day with her son"

If she hadn't behaved so appallingly then she would have had many days with her son.

The system in this case seems to have been excellent.

As viking said she wasn't losing her son, they were sharing responsibility until she gambled everything on unsubstantiated abuse claims and breaching court orders.

People need to read what exactly happened.

Article on the case worth reading on Karen Woodall's Blog.

"...better a child loses contact with an essentially harmless father than a child is hurt or killed by a dangerous but plausible one..."

How is it better for the child who is robbed of a decent relationship with their 'essentially harmless' father?

link to Karen Woodall's article here

excelsior83 I think it's important that people understand, just because allegations have not been proven, doesn't mean they are false.

It doesn't mean they are true either.

I wouldn't want a justice system where allegations are accepted as true without any evidence.

SDTG: Because contact with biological parents is not essential. Plenty of children grow up happy and healthy despite the fact that their fathers have fucked off and never shown any interest in them. It's a matter of risk, that's all.

No, but having said this evidence is offers selectively in many cases. Even when parents are represented by legal counsel. It's not unheard of for authorities and counsel to work with one another to get the expected outcome.

There is currently a system in place that is rigorously promoting and focusing on father's rights, and this even applies in cases that have involved proven domestic violence.

I note that someone has said residence was shared up until the final order was made giving the father custody; an important question that should be asked... was shared residence ordered by the court, or did the mother agree to this? Children are currently being split down the middle 50/50 as if they are property, and mothers who have carried their children and bonded with them from the moment they were conceived, are now being cruelly seperated from their children, to appease fathers rights groups. This is no longer about ensuring father's having contact with their children, it is about children being regarded as property, and I think this is very sad.

With regards to false allegations, I believe polyograph testing should be brought into play. The mother's allegations may not have been false, but the courts rely on evidence, and if there is none, then any such person who braves making such allegations is on dangerous ground. Because potentially the tables can be turned on them, to suggest they are obstructing contact for no good reason. If this is the case here, I feel truly sorry for the mother.

Polygraphs are a pseudoscience. No way should they be used in legal proceedings.

"...better a child loses contact with an essentially harmless father than a child is hurt or killed by a dangerous but plausible one..."

This is wrong and not how justice works. It's the same as saying "better an innocent man be sent to jail than the risk that a dangerous man is set free". Fine if you would be ok with being that innocent person.

FWIW, and this is anecdotal, I only know of two nasty custody cases and in both cases, I'm sorry to say, the mother made baseless accusations and in one case fled the country in order to maintain her control. They both still have custody, but only just.

I am regular on the feminism boards so by no means a fan of the MRA movement. All I am trying to say is that both sides are capable of behaving appallingly and I haven't read anything to suggest that this woman in the case being discussed here is actually a victim of anything that merits this sort of behaviour. Of course the courts could have got it very wrong but they at least had a chance to hear the story which we haven't.

Polygraph tests? Why would anyone want that? I don't think we have those in the UK and a good thing too.

the risk here in this case is from the 'mother'.....

if she returns him then she will now be getting supervised contact most likely. in a contact centre,supervised. how humiliating

It's not unheard of for authorities and counsel to work with one another to get the expected outcome

Well its unheard of in my practice and the work of anyone else I know and has been for 15 years. I act on my client's instructions - I will tell my client if I think he/she is being ridiculous and usually they listen. That is very far from me being in cahoots with the other side. I think that is a silly and quite paranoid suggestion.

Polygraph tests - utter waste of time. They are not reliable for a start. Also, parents who are thwarting contact usually have convinced themselves they are acting totally in the best interests of the child. So what would they be 'lying' about?

And be careful of Karen Goodall. She has an agenda. No one who is banging a drum for one particular thing is helpful in this field.

SGB,

The risk of a child developing serious problems is doubled upon separation.

excelsior

Just because a mother carries a child does not mean that relationship is stronger than a father and courts are not making decisions to 'appease fathers rights groups'.

There is nothing 'brave' about making false allegations, clearly it is the father that deserves any sympathy in this case.

Spero,

What is Karen Woodall's agenda?

The only drum I read her banging is the support of mothers and fathers who face alienation from their own children.

I've reported your posts Verena76. Mumsnet is not the place for ill advised appeals to a mother on the run.