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?

But again - what are the actual stats? Yes, there are appalling cases of 'family anihilators', those fathers who kill their children in midst of contact disputes, but these are not everyday occurrences, they are pretty rare.

Of course, even one is one too many but to give the impression that is commonplace is just wrong and doesn't help

I think Woman's Aid found 29 deaths over 10 years due to dodgy court decisions - but Wall LJ said the majority of those cases were outside the court system.

So what are the real numbers? I don't know. Does anyone ?

Because, SGB there is no law against being a crap fathered (or mother). You can be uninterested and the law can't stop you as long as someone else is ensuring the child is not neglected. . But there are laws about denying ok parents access to their children.

I agree it is appalling that so any men father children and walk away - but the law can do very little to 'force' an emotional relationship in such circs.

Boney that's so true. I've lost count of the number of posts made by desperate fathers, seeking advice on how to overcome their ex's resistance to contact, who have been told that the "right" way to go about things is to apply to court.

And that's what Ethan's dad did. Who knows, he may have posted on MN and been given that advice. And he did go to court and he was awarded contact, again in a way that MN generally supports - supervised contact with his very young DC, in the presence of Ethan's mum. But that broke down, so he went back to court, not in an attempt to control Ethan's mum, but in response to deliberate acts on her part that prevented contact. And he defended himself against allegations of drug taking and abuse; continuing to fight for Ethan, despite the enormous emotional, professional and financial toll it had.

I'm not in the legal profession, but like spero, I welcome the publicity surrounding this case. Because the debates and discussions it has generated have exposed the many different views that are held about the role of mothers, and value of fathers, in a child's life.

What has surprised me is how many people are willing to publicly express their very polarised opinion. I had not fully realised until now how many people place such differing values on the role of each parent.

Again, I think it's about asking the court to solve a problem way outside its remit.

The court exists to interpret and enforce current law. It cannot make shit people into good people or push people into making good choices about who they have children with.

it cannot make shit people into good people or push people into making good choices about who they have children with.

That's a really good point, spero. In this case, Rebecca withheld contact between Ethan and his dad less than a year after Ethan was conceived, and a matter of weeks after he was born - subsequently alleging that she did so because Ethan's dads Drug use made him unsafe for Ethan to have even supervised contact with.

One issue that isn't clear is whether Ethan's dad was present at the registration of Ethan's birth. Did he have PR, or was it awarded in one of the early court cases? If the former, then would the court have asked why Rebecca was willing to share PR with a man who three months later she believed was such a serious threat to Ethan's safety?

One has to wonder why the neighbours of the father have come out in support of the mother.

I dunno Sabrinna. Because he is a drug addict? Because he's a peedo? Or because they know fuck all but the Daily Mail wants a good story ?

So it's trial by neighbours now is it?

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.

As my username indicates, I'm in the SEN field, not family law. I have to say I have come across social workers lying: unfortunately it's not at all unknown, when parents start to rock the boat about local authority failures in terms of their children's education and care, for councils to start suggesting they're making it up, have Munchausen's by Proxy, and even that they are emotionally harming and abusing their children. I've seen social workers take child protection action alleging that parents had taken their child to see over 30 experts - when asked to list these experts, or even to give some indication where all this came from, the SWs went very quiet and shortly afterwards the CP action was dropped. I've come across another SW allege that staff at a special school told him that a child with autism had no sensory problems. Not only were the staff very, very clear that they had said no such thing because it was absolutely not their view, but his sensory difficulties were included in the statement drawn up by the council's education department! And I've come across CP action where the main issue was the council was unlawfully failing to arrange for the child to have full time education.

So I have, at the very least, a questioning attitude to what SWs say. But I also accept that the liars I have come across are not necessarily representative. I absolutely do not believe in the sort of rubbish spouted by people like Hemming about plots to steal children for adoption, and collusion between SWs and parents' lawyers - I know a number of lawyers who act for children and parents in such cases who regularly do 14 hour days for the offensively low pay rates available under legal aid and are absolutely determined to put the best possible case forward. In a case like this one where SWs are in a neutral position and their views are supported by the guardian and the psychiatrist, I can see no reason to believe that the judge has got it wrong, and of course the very fact that the mother hasn't appealed but has run away also strengthens that view.

One has to wonder why the neighbours of the father have come out in support of the mother.

But they haven't, have they? 7 members of the local community have signed a letter to say that they believe it is unfair if Rebecca never sees Ethan again. I share that sentiment, as do, I imagine, many of the posters on this thread.

But, the judge has already made it clear that it is highly unlikely to the point of impossible that Ethan would never have any contact with his mum. It's never been a consideration in previous court cases.

So really, the letter from neighbours says nothing at all, does it?

Since when is the DM on the side of mothers?? DO you think it's the best decision to remove this child from it's mother? The person who has cared for him since birth. I would imagine removal being utterly traumatic for him. She's not abusive to the child - she's been denying contact with the father, which the court has labelled 'psychologically abusive'.

I'm not condoning her running away with him - I'm talking about prior to that - this court ruling that because she denied contact to the father, the father gets residency? I don't think that's in the best interests of the child at all.

Well, Sabrinna, since you haven't seen the evidence that the judge read and weren't in court when everyone gave evidence; nor have you talked to everyone involved as the guardian and social worker have; and you haven't examined Ethan as the psychiatrist has: why do you think you know better than they do about his best interests?

This child wasn't the result of a virgin birth.

He had a father who wanted to be in his life, who was prevented by the mother who lied about him.

As of Feb he was living four nights a week with his father.

Just why are you so keen to defend what this mother has done? How was any of it in the best interests of this child?

If you're going to say that, senlawyer - then what's the point of discussing it at all?

We can just all say that family courts are perfect and go and do something less boring instead.

I'm not defending what the mother has done - I'm questioning the court seeing a defying of a contact order as grounds to remove the child from her, and give residency to the father - which was done before the mother went on the run - was the cause of it.

Not really an answer, Sabrinna, is it? If you're going to say that all those people must have got it wrong, you really have to come up with something that shows some regard for the facts.

For instance, you talk about this all being so traumatic for the child, but have no regard to the fact that there would be no trauma involved if the mother had simply allowed his father to have normal involvement in his life from the outset. You also disregard the fact that he has been spending 4 nights a week with his father, so living there permanently but having regular contact with his mother won't be massively different for him.

The record of the hearings before she went into hiding have not been made public.

But the ones linked here show that she was not the RP, and has not been his only carer since birth. There was a close to 50/50 arrangement, so what she has done is "cruelly rip" Ethan from the father he has (or should have) lived with just as much as with her.

I'm not defending what the mother has done - I'm questioning the court seeing a defying of a contact order as grounds to remove the child from her, and give residency to the father - which was done before the mother went on the run - was the cause of it.

Actually, that's not the chronology at all, according to the transcripts that have been published.

The order to transfer 'residency' was made after Rebecca failed to attend a hearing.

Have you read the judgements? Do you understand what she did?

She did not merely defy a court order. She took Ethan to hospital to be checked out for signs of 'sexual abuse' - AFTER the court had ruled she lied about that. No 'made a mistake'. Not was 'an over protective worried mother'.

She lied. She is setting this child up to be brainwashed that his father is an abuser.

that is wicked.

the child psychiatrist Dr Berelowitz saw Ethan with his father and said they had a 'warm relationship'.

Just why do you think this mother has any right at all to destroy that for this child. I am genuinely curious as to why you think that. I just don't understand it.

But it's much more than defying a contact order, Sabrinna. It's also the serious matter of making extremely serious and indeed horrible allegations against the father, and subjecting the child to medical examinations to check her assertions. This child is entitled to have his father in his life and his mother has done her best to prevent that. That in itself is harmful to him.

Here's my question senlawyer:

I'm not defending what the mother has done - I'm questioning the court seeing a defying of a contact order as grounds to remove the child from her, and give residency to the father - which was done before the mother went on the run - was the cause of it.

I thought she had denied contact with the father? If he was spending the 4 nights a week with his father that the court ordered - then how was she denying contact?

Just why do you think this mother has any right at all to destroy that for this child.

I don't think that - but I equally don't think the answer is for the court to remove the child from his mother and only give her supervised access.

She was continuing to assert that the child was a victim of abuse from the father.

If she had been left to her own devices, she would have ended the relationship entirely.

Because she could not stop making false allegations, the court finally and reluctantly ruled that Ethan should live with his father and she should have supervised contact - to stop her saying the things she was saying to Ethan about his father.

Ok Sabrinna so just what do we do?

Let parents drip whatever poison they want into the ears of their children? Or do we try to protect them from parents who - for whatever reason - just cannot act to promote and protect their children?

Sabrinna,

The court was not removing the child from her, they were trying to ensure the child had a relationship with both parents.

When a mother goes to such lengths what options do they have?

Send mum to prison? That is no good for the child, so having the child live with the dad more was the only option left because there is no evidence that the father has ever tried to deprive the child of a mother.

The cause of all of this was the mother's obstructive behaviour.

Also, just because I have experienced overcoming false allegations and can identify with this case to some degree does not make me a 'father's rights activist'

And yes, I do believe that women receive less severe sentencing for the same crimes but I'm not sure why that makes me a 'father's rights activist' either.

What would I like to happen to this mother? I would hope that she finally accept that her child needs the loving relationship of both parents and work together as parents in future. That is what after 5 years has happened in my own case so I know it is possible.