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?

Sorry, it was a District Judge who heard the evidence from the professionals... better go to bed now.

But thanks for the discussion, I think its really interesting and really useful.

I hope something good at least comes of this, that we get talking about it and this time we have the information we need to discuss it properly.

Because the burden of proof in court is high, spero. A judge not being presented with enough evidence does not equal the allegation being false.

I agree very much with this but I'm sure you'll all bust a fuse (particulalry sonny) because it has the word "Women" at the top. But I'll just point out that for the purposes of this writing 'primary carer' can be the mother or the father.

I put Keir Starmer even above spero - unless spero can show me her 17 month study into false allegations?

And Keir Starmer's report was about rape and abuse generally. So less than 3pc of people who turn up to a police station and make an allegation are lying - that sort of picture.

Not the same as in family breakdown where each side has to fight a battle and each side has something to lose. It's a very different situation.

I can only say that in my own case, my now ex wife did something that she had to try and cover up with lies and attempt to portray me as the bad one.

A case of 'oh the tangled web we weave when first we practise to decieve'.

And extremely controlling behaviour.

So you're saying women routinely make up lies in the family court?

I think people are saying that men and women sometimes lie in the family court.

Exactly sen. Clearly both sides are not completely right if there are two different versions. Someone is lying. Sometimes A is truthful and B is lying, sometimes A is lying and B is truthful. Sometimes both are dishonest. And sometimes both sides think they are telling the truth but both are wrong and are deluding themselves.

I'm not sure why this is controversial.

From the link above:

"We also hear that Rebecca Minnock ‘made false allegations’. How does the court know the allegations were false? Just because abuse and coercion cannot be proved does not mean the allegations are false.

Research shows women make false allegations in 2% of cases. False denials are much more common that false allegations. If you’re a mother experiencing abuse or coercion you are damned if you mention abuse, and dammed if you don’t."

We come back to the fact that the court saw and heard all the evidence, Sabrinna. The mother was legally represented so had every opportunity to present it. You have to look at the fact that she chose to have a relationship with the father, but was doing her best to stop him having anything to do with his son virtually as soon as he was born, at a point when the issue of abuse wouldn't have arisen; and that she seems to have produced these allegations specifically when things were going against her.

What research are you referring to? The Keir Starmer report doesn't relate to this type of case.

I am saying that both genders lie in family courts to a far higher percentage than you believe.

Agreed sen,

In this case the mother has clearly fabricated allegations in order to obstruct their child from having a relationship with the father.

Sky News just tweeted she's handed herself in to police.

Far from it Sabrinna,

A mother with young children has little to lose if she makes false allegations in the family court, only when the pattern emerges and they continue to frustrate contact then the court will have little option but to take serious action, as they have in this case.

It is clear the mother is entirely responsible for her own predicament.

"Sky News just tweeted she's handed herself in to police."

BBC News has just said similar. She's apparently itw the Daily Mail, who have stated she's done that, but no official word from the police so far.

Has any information been given about why she hates this man so much? Other than oh, women are spiteful and irrational and tell lies sometimes (yes, some women are indeed spiteful and irrational and dishonest - you only have to think of Karen Matthews to be reminded that women are not all perfect).

And it is known that abusive men often don't show the extent of their misogyny and cruelty until the woman is pregnant or the child is born - which is one explanation for why women become pregnant by men they later want to cut contact with.

SGB,

There is absolutely no evidence in this case that the father is a cruel misogynist and plenty of evidence that the mother is abusive and controlling.

She hates him because he is there

They've been found, it's on BBC breaking news. Safe and well.

No, no information on any of the previous hearings other than what is contained in the 4 publicly released judgements (8,9,11,12 June; linked to this thread several times).

I suspect she hates him because he committed the crimes of wanting to see his child and thwarting her attempts to keep him away.

And it is playing right into the hairy hands of the MRA who can reasonably say on the basis of some of the responses to this case, that women are irrational and can just make it up as they go along

These debates have certainly provided MRA with evidence that there are some people who place significantly lower value on a fathers role in a DCs life than a mothers - and that there are some who believe that a mother always acts in their child's best interests.

The reason that is so significant may be because, in many parts of the country at least, these cases begin in magistrates court; and magistrates are layman, who, like the various posters on this thread, have their own, often very strongly held views on the role of parents, and their value in a child's life.

There are many family law cases which are resolved without ever being heard by a judge of any description. Given what this case has revealed about the limited value that some people place on evidence when it challenges their "world view", perhaps it is time to review that aspect of family law procedure?

I do have to wonder about the 'false allegation' statistics and wonder if only 'new allegations' are documented?.

I honestly don't know how the statistics are compiled but I do know that working in MH I know many women who have made false allegations. Those allegations have been proved to be false. The number is not majorly significant when compared to numbers of actual victims but should still be considered and are bigger than the 'false allegations' published. (IME)

The sad fact is that the overwhelming majority of the women I've known with proved false allegations had been victims of sexual abuse at some point in their lives (usually childhood) and it consumed their adulthood. So they were a victim at one stage but not by the person they accused in this instance.

And those women (not all women obviously but the women with MH problems I was working with) made repeated allegations of sexual abuse or rape to authorities including the Police.

The Police (and the womans MH teams) are aware of this but the national statistics on 'false allegations' don't appear to reflect my experience of it and I wonder if they're not including women who have made repeated historical allegations/are deemed to be mentally ill.

AnyoneForTennis and Icimoi,*

From my own experience, I think you've nailed it there.

Peruvian,

are MRA's and feminists not two sides of the same coin? (genuine question, as previously I have been accused of being an MRA, even though I am not, nor am I feminist).

I can only write from experience and research over the past 6 years, that my experience has been through the family court with Judges and not the magistrates.

I really don't understand how people can show sympathy for the mother. I feel sorry for the father having to fight through to courts to prove his a fit parent and fighting horrendous allegations (for someone to even suggest you've sexually abused your child if your innocent is the thing of nightmares) only for her to run of with their child. It looks as if she's been found but there are partners who do run off with children to never see the other parent again (usually abroad). I can't imagine the pain of the dad who had to sit at home for days on end wondering if he'll ever see his kid again while the good people of mn suggest he's a woman-hating piece of cr@p to be tried in the court of 'well my ex was like this/did this'

Personally if it was me i'd be heavily pushing that my partner (whether male or female) be never allowed unsupervised contact again or at least until she can follow court judgements. What if she does it again?

Her story clearly dosen't add up. She dosen't feel safe to give the dad custody but didn't mind him him sharing custody up until the court order? If it was my child i wouldn't be allowing them to spend a single second unsupervised if i suspected abuse. He's passed a drugs test and the son was examined for sexual abuse (is that not abuse in itself? Forcing your child to undergo a sexual assault examination to drag your ex through the dirt?) so its clear the allegations were false and timed for affect.

Its so utterly selfish to attempt to deprive them both of the relationship because you feel hard done by the courts. What kind of life did she expect to provide on the run? He wouldn't of been able to have friends, educated, stable home basically exist. My guess is she never planned to be on the run long-term and it was for dramatic effect to martyr herself.

Mums and dads are regularly hard done by family court, its the nature of two estranged people wanting one thing. However i find it deplorable people are trying to use it to push there feminist/men's rights agendas. Just because the Judge ruled against you does not mean there is some massive societal conspiracy against mums or dads.

If it was my ex partner I wouldn't be in a very forgiving mood about this episode.