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?

Agree with STDG.

Also re bundles - index is circulated in advance. If you don't getit, ask for it. If I portant info is missing, ask for it to be included, if it's not, tell the judge. Don't just let it go and mutter afterwards about conspiracy.

And I am afraid there is absolutely nothing sinister about last minute changes of judge - happens all the time. Too many cases, not enough judges, they have to box and cox. Judicial continuity very desirable, just sadly not always possible.

Chronologies are written by father's counsel because he is the applicant - again, nothing sinister about this. If you don't like his chronology, draft and submit your own or challenge his.

Don't just let the court process wash over you - if there is evidence you want before the judge, you have a responsibility to make that happen, you can't expect the other side to promote your case!

It's all man's fault then eh?

See, it's that type of comment that makes me think "father's rights activist". Why did you say that Gingerbread was a feminist organisation - it is not - it is run for single parents.

On your comments about women being punished less severely - another father's rights perennial argument - what would like to happen to this mother?

We don't know the full story here - but we do know that the allegations are of sexual abuse. I'm just thinking of another MNetter's story- whose son has alleged sexual abuse, SS/the family courts will do nothing. She is forced to hand her son over for unsupervised contact, otherwise the courts have threatened to take her son away from her and he'll live full time with the father. This case could almost be her story.

If you concede you don't know full details of this story, then nor can you possibly know 'the truth' behind any story from any random mumsnetter.

People can be very plausible and selective in what they say. Just because someone tells you a father is abusive means very little. Such serious allegations should be made and proved in a court.

I don't see that any other system is safe. It may not be perfect but it's a damn sight better than saying a man can't see his hold because he mother 'told her story' to mumsnet and they found her plausible.

Well, this is clearly a case of women/children we don't believe you, isn't it?

NO. It's saying - if you make serious allegations you have to prove them.

If someone was making serious allegations about me, that is what I would want.

I think you take allegations seriously but 'belief' as default position can be dangerous and naive.

The problem is spero, if a chronology or court bundle is put together by the father's counsel, and a mother isn't shown this until the final hour, and she is very busy (being the primary carer, and it may school holidays, and she may also work), furthermore she may be a litigant in person, so only gets chance to challenge the bundle in court at the final hour. By this point, although she can challenge the chonology, evidence may be missing, and verbally challenging a chronology of events isn't the same as it being recorded on paper; if ever a case later returns to court, the past/inaccurate chronology will be relied on.

You are right Spero, with your experience you know that parents should absolutely check the bundles in advance, and ensure they challenge everything at court. But litigant's in persons, who are busy primary carers, and who may also be domestic violence victims and find the entire process stressful, don't always realise nor understand this.

I think there needs to be an overhaul, to ensure that LIP's are fully aware of their rights, prior to hearings. The government website for case-law and procedures is arduous and perplexing, and difficult for many parents to process.

I do think there needs to be something in place to protect LIP's being taken advantage of, because this can and does happen, and there is currently nothing in place to protect parents and children from it. So the results of hearings aren't necessarily about children's best interests, but are often the produce of advantage vs disadvantage. Sadly.

It's not about saying "men we don't believe you" or "women we don't believe you". It's about saying some individual people do not tell the truth. Men and women have been known to lie.

It may be that both parties here are lying and the truth lies somewhere in between the two versions. It may be that only one is lying. But that's for the court to try to discover and there is absolutely no evidence to support a claim along the lines of "mothers always do what's right for their child" or, on the other hand "fathers are always unfairly denied access".

You make a good point excelsior - I have 15 years experience of 100s of cases and it is easy for me to fall into the trap of expecting someone with 6 months experience of 1 case to understand what they need to do.

Better information and support must be the answer.

Part of the problem is also that lay people confuse the law with 'justice' - they are not always the same thing.

Agreed spero Part of the problem is also that lay people confuse the law with 'justice' - they are not always the same thing

This needs to repeated a billion times in flashing lights.

Excelsior's point is another illustration of the many reasons why the removal of legal aid for these cases was such a bloody stupid idea.

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

That is the pick of some frankly scary stuff on this thread. Including an implication that the father in the minnock car is already guilty of child abuse. Confusing that due process in the Ched Evans case was considered as gospel yet in this case due process doesn't seem to matter to many on MN.

Great posts spero, that people like you are involved in family law gives me a lot of faith in the process

"Excelsior's point is another illustration of the many reasons why the removal of legal aid for these cases was such a bloody stupid idea."

I could not agree more, Icimoi.

Another one loving Speros measured, informative and sensible posts.

I'm not in law but MH and I've attended numerous child protection meetings and family court hearings.

Like Spero, I have honestly never seen cases not being considered properly or social workers lying. I'm not saying it never happens, but I haven't seen it in 17 years of practice.

I HAVE seen many parents unable to understand how their behaviour can be abusive and damage their child.

And although yes, it's rare I have also seen false allegations made by parents because of their own MH issues and often that's because of their own traumatic experiences in childhood.

Having a stance of 'I believe you' when it's any report of abuse by a woman is a dangerous stance to take. Any report should be thoroughly investigated but treated as what it is - an allegation and not a statement of fact.

Thank you all, your cheques are in the post.

For clear, sensible, humane exposition of what the law is trying to do here, the judgement of 12th June is a must read
www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/roger-williams-v-rebecca-minnock-and-ethan-freeman-williams-2-judgments/

And selfishly, wearing my lawyer's hat, I am glad this case has happened.

i accept it must be unbearably awful for the people involved BUT it has sparked a real debate and discussion about the family justice system, which is usually stymied by the laws relating to confidentiality.

We lawyers moan that the press keep getting it wrong, but its not their fault they don't understand when they are not allowed access to relevant details (disclaimer, unless its the Mail or the Telegraph, then its most definitely their fault because they ignore the relevant details right in front of them).

I hope the Transparency Project can continue its work with greater awareness now from the wider public. Its such an important part of the law for all of us and it is a great shame that it provokes such intense criticism and so many people feel it is failing.

I think we urgently need to explore and understand better whether this is based on a lack of proper knowledge about the system or whether the system is structurally unsound and needs thorough revision. I think its more of the former than the latter, but I am always open to other's views.

Some interesting stuff in the press. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/12/rebecca-minnock-runaway-told-come-home-friend-admits-helping-her-flee

Mr Butt, the maternal grandmother's partner is sentenced to 28 days for lying to the court about where RM was. He said her running away was a deliberate ploy to generate publicity to 'get a stronger case'.

The judge described the plan to use the press as “wicked” and asked him what impact the sort of action Minnock had taken must have on children. “They get hurt,” Butt replied. The judge asked him what would happen if everyone behaved in such a way. “Chaos, anarchy,” Butt replied

Its strange that even when a father does what MN says that he should when the mother is being obstructive he is still wrong.

Its the law of unintended consequences at play I think - a campaign such as 'we believe you' which is intended to raise awareness of the often appalling attitudes towards female complainants of rape and sexual assault, creates an environment that anything said by a woman against a man must be true and accepted without investigation or question.

that is really dangerous. Any serious allegation made by anyone about anyone should be treated with respect and treated seriously BUT not accepted as 'truth' unless and until the evidence that supports the allegation is available and tested.

And still the best place for that is the court. Or, if you prefer 'least worst' place.

Because if you just 'believe' without further ado, where do your beliefs take you? That a father should lose his child? That a child should lose his father?

Agree about "we believe you". There's taking abuse allegations seriously and treating complainants with dignity - which we need - and a blanket confirmation that all allegations are truthful - which we don't.

Spero: I take your point about unintended consequences but there are still too many cases of women's claims of abuse being ignored WRT contact between father and child leading to terrible harm coming to children.

And if the law is so concerned about children being deprived of a relationship with a father on the grounds that the mother fears for the child's safety, why isn't the law going after the men who abandon their children and refuse to see them? If the concern of the law is the wellbeing of children and the impact on them of not seeing their fathers, how come this concern only takes effect when it can be used in what often looks like a way of allowing men to punish 'disobedient' women?