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 the child has lived with his mother all this time"

Only because she blocked contact.

If it can't be proved/unproved then what do parents do when they have to hand a child over to a controlling druggy?

"Everything on court record is 100% true then, ok hmm. We don't know everything about this case just what the media is telling us. The mother obviously thought she was doing the right thing. But who really knows."

That's just it. We don't know anything. The court found that the allegations against the father were false - but judges have been known to make mistakes. It is at least plausible that the mother decided to abscond because, as far as she was concerned, the allegations were true. Who knows? Just strikes me as a very sad case which isn't going to have a happy ending, whatever happens.

moon I hope Rebecca has absconded because she does believe that her allegations are true, all be it unfounded. Because if that is the case, then (if she is found) it should be possible to provide her with the assurances in the long term she needs to allow Ethan to have a relationship with both his parents.

If, however her allegations were malicious, then her motivation for withholding contact isn't motivated Ethan's best interests, and that will be a barrier to her ever having a meaningful relationship with him.

[b] moon [/b] have you read the judgments? They are not long.

There was at least one fact-finding hearing where the judge considered the evidence and (probably) heard from both parties giving live oral evidence. If the judge made a mistake the mother could (and should) have appealed that decision. Likewise, she could have appealed the order transferring residence to the father. She did none of these things. She had lawyers but did not attend the final hearing to challenge the evidence.

It is also worth noting that the worries about the mother's care of Ethan were not just from the judge. It is clear that (a) the court appointed independent child psychologist (b) the allocated social worker and (c) the child's independent Guardian were also worried about the emotional abuse of Ethan. This is the reasons care was transferred.

I do agree there are double standards on this thread. If a father had absconded with a three year old, because a court was likely to rule he should only have supervised contact, and was on the run with no obvious funds for 11 days, no one would question the rightness of removing that child from his care.

Agree with badgerlady

Has anybody on here actually had any personal experience of similar situations in the family courts?

As is well known, domestic abuse nearly always takes place behind closed doors. Women quite often never report it, for many reasons, not least fear of the consequences. Then when the relationship breaks down, if there are children involved, she is suddenly in a situation where she knows her child is not safe in the care of her ex, but she has absolutely no 'proof' to back up her case. So if no 'proof' is found, does it mean the abuse never took place?

We don't know exactly what happened in this case, but it seems to me that this woman is has been driven to desperate measures to protect her child from somebody she doesn't believe is safe, for whatever reason. To such a point that she is risking her own rights to see her child in the future.

Maybe I sound biased, but the bias towards the father in the press, and on here, is quite astounding IMO.

badgerlady from what I read I thought the Authorities believed the child could be at risk of emotional harm in the future because his mother was repeatedly questioning him about about what had happened between him and his father.

The day before the final hearing the mother took Ethan to the hospital after collecting him from his father and alleged sexual abuse. Doctors found no evidence.

All 3 of the experts, independent and state allocated, found that the child was at risk of emotional abuse if left in the primary care of his Mother. They all recommend supervised access only.

Why is it that whenever questions the Ched Evans verdict on MN there's a unanimous chorus of 'The judge heard all of the evidence and so who are you to say otherwise?'. But with something like this, or the surrogate mother in the similar case, people seem to think that the judge has made a mistake and we should always question what is decided in court?

I suppose the tone of reporting is because of the history in court that badgerlady describes (eg no appeal) and because this wasn't sudden - it was frustration of contact over a couple of years, it seems.

And also it's 'bias' if you think that a parent of one particular sex must be believed more than the other, and a court has to be wrong if they find differently. It's quite rare for mothers to lose residency completely, but there was also a case reported in May. And again, it came after months/years of frustrated contact and allegations held to be false.

No Judge, SW, CAFCASS officer or psychologist can know the truth they do their best and use information shared from imperfect colleagues who make mistakes.

The big thing in serious case reviews is always poor information recording and sharing.

My friends ex takes drugs and repeatedly failed drugs tests and still got contact. He's very abusive.

No way are the courts on the mothers side.

When I raised my concerns during my children's contact hearings everyone disbelieved me. Barrister even said if I had suffered DV I'd have told someone in authority riiiight.

I always advise women in these situations to go to the GP get it on record somehow, email friends about it take pictures of bruises anything.

My personal experience and watching the experience of a lot of women embroiled in contact cases with abusive ex's, is the courts are not at all adequate. I begged for help SS would not get involved as it was in the courts, CAHMS refused to help as the issue was contact and whilst contact was still in place nothing they could do would help my very disturbed child (both gp and school referred it). If I hadn't the kicks ass lawyer and ability to get so many loans & the purely accidental way we ended up referred to a judge specialising in DV cases, I don't want to think what my DC would be going thro right now.

The judges are totally divorced from the reality of bringing up child safely when an expartner is abusive.

I paid for a transcript of the judges order to go on file on the judges advice in case ex ever tried for contact again.

The children's best interests are not considered at all. The fathers rights were. And I fought like a demon against him because I could not leave my DC at his mercies. Eight years is no joke given I had to also hold down a job and parent my DC at the same time.

Ex also claimed I was lying about the grooming. My DC were distraught. To this day my youngest doesn't care if people harm her, she thinks no one will listen to her if she complains. I told the judge at the final hearing that there was no way on earth I would tell either of my DC that they had no autonomy over their own bodies. If something felt uncomfortable to them, they have every right to refuse to allow a person to touch them or force them to do something they are not comfortable with. Ex was telling court I should be forcing my DC to let him touch them. Youngest would spend contact sitting under a table.

I don't believe there are too many hard done by wonderful dads out there with monstrous ex's refusing contact.

Fuzzywuzzy,

But that is your own terrible experience.

From my own terrible experience I could easily state that there ARE too many hard done by wonderful dads out there with ex's refusing and frustrating contact.

We were lucky, who ever was giving ex therapy must have told him to leave us alone. It turned out from his psychiatric report he had a dx of a mh issue and was having counselling. He used the courts to abuse. If I could shake the hand of his therapist I would and give them a hug. He abuses financially to this day, I can handle that.

Fuzzywuzzy's case is not at all unusual. I know that to be truth in my line of work.

"No way are the courts on the mothers side." - I agree with this entirely. And no way is the media on the mothers side either.

I agree.

Sooner this little boy is living with his dad the better! Guessing she will be caught by the weekend and dealt with

Happy,

I would agree that the courts are not on the 'mothers side' but neither are they on the 'fathers side'.

Obviously I don't know what your line of work is but if it is anything concerning family law then you're previous speculative comments are worrying.

that'll be 'your'.

The courts are not on the side of the children in some cases, some of the professionals are working their own agenda.

Absolutely King Tut, it does happen

but again, that can works both ways.

She said she'd rather her toddler son went into care than live with her father. That removed any sympathy I have at this current time, with what little we know. Currently only heard up to lunch time the news and only read the OP.