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?

Chaise, the Sally Clark case was a different type of legal action, and the very fact that it hit the news in such a big way and is still remembered now demonstrates how unusual it was. The fact that you can refer to one case 16 years ago where there was a clear error is not evidence that this court and all the separate professionals involved have all made a major mistake. It is worth pointing out that Sally Clark appealed: Rebecca Minnock did not.

It is wrong to take children from their father.

This is about a child and two parents, one of which has been emotionally abusing and abducted the child.

It is not wrong to remove a child and have supervision with a bad mother.

Verena, can you not understand that this child would still be with his mother if she had been prepared to allow him to have his father in his life?

Chaise, this case bears no similarity whatsoever to cases involving medical misdiagnoses. Even the mother has never suggested that there is any sort of medical issue.

Chaise, and RM was working outside his field of excellence.

I was just making the point that mistakes can be made.
And that once professionals make decisions, it is difficult to re-route a case.

Just a general suggestion.

Its just wrong to take away from Children, their Mother!

But what if their mother is unwilling or unable to meet their needs? Should a child remain in a neglectful or abusive situation at all costs?

verona. Not all mothers are capable of looking after their child well. There may be physical or mental ill health, unresolved damage from their own childhood, or just an unawareness of what a child needs.

It doesn't "come naturally" to all mothers. And if those mums aren't willing to accept help, then what happens to the children? are you really saying that it is better for a child to be harmed or even killed by their mum, rather than be cared for by someone else?

It has been decided that Rebecca was harming Ethan. Imagine what would have happened if the judge had read that report and said, "yes, we know Ethan is at risk, but we can't take him away from his mum". And imagine what would happen if Ethan then did come to further harm at the hands of his mother. Who would be to blame?

So you remove children so the professionals don't get told off?

You remove children to protect them!

If a child is deemed at risk of harm by a parent and the authorities do nothing, they are failing the child.

Well focus on the child then and don't try the emotional blackmail of the poor professionals getting told off then.

tut The "poor professionals" you think I am defending are big enough to stand up for themselves!

verona is promoting an agenda that leaves children in the care of neglectful or abusive mothers.
If society thinks that is acceptable, then there is no need for child protection professionals at all, is there? Why bother with investigations; if an allegation against a mother is made, then it would be irrelevant, and if the father was alleged to be abusive then the mother can protect the child, she doesn't need help.

It can all be left in the hands of mothers, who, according to verona always know best.

Some of the posts on here are absolutely unbelievable with views so off the scale it's not funny.

As for mothers instinct? What's that? Just because your a woman doesn't give you any extra powers, it doesn't make you superhuman or any other powers. Verena I think you need to come back to reality, your living in a different world from everyone else.

Still you are focused on poor professionals and the public outcry. I suggest, get some help or move away from safeguarding if that's your attitude.

tut. Wht do you mean, "move away from safeguarding"? Are you mistaking me for someone else who is a professional in the safeguarding arena?

Yes. I am sorry.

King Tut, I don't understand where you get the idea that anyone thinks professionals have to be defended at the expense of children's safety? If a professional gets it wrong, then absolutely he or she should be called on it, especially if getting it wrong can endanger a child. I simply have seen no evidence that the professionals in this case have got it wrong, however.

I have experience with drug testing and it is very very very unlikely someone would pass a test using 'urine cleaner' bought of the internet. The tests have many indicators to detect tampering of the sample. The internet products are scams working off the fear of people that know they won't pass the test.

It's possible maybe your ex did indeed stop using. And on another note I don't think been a drug user is blanket justification for the very serious removal of custody. If the child was exposed to it or there was side issues that posed harm to the child (addicition, bankruptcy, crime, abuse) I would very much support it. I think we need to realise that some parents can be responsible casual drug users just to many parents enjoy a drink when the kids are put to bed. Look at the very middle class marijuana mums in calafornia. I find it a bit skeptical of the parents who are very 'oh s/he aint harming no one' while there with their partner but as soon as they're in court its 'well s/he's clearly an unfit parent there a dirty druggie junkie'.

Verena76

"Its just wrong to take away from Children, their Mother!"

In what way is it right that the mother should deny the child their father?

In many of the MN posts about male partners that haven't seen their children the overwhelming response is to go through the courts and get the mother to allow the child to see the father.

There are even posts on those threads that state they they would dump the man if he didn't do everything anything to see the child.

It really does seem that some posters will find something wrong with this man following the advice of MN.

My DD has an amazing bond with my DH. If we ever split and I did my best to break that bond, it would have a terrible effect on her and would make me an unfit parent. I'm getting a little sick of the news giving this stupid woman airtime.

The idea that a father is "putting his child through hell" and being "cruel" for enforcing his rights through the courts is extremely depressing.

As a man, it seems you're damned if you do, damned if you don't...

No people have experience of professionals getting it wrong and how many facts and how many opinions are the court working from?

Look, the court don't ask the first two people in the phone book and then think "fuck it" and throw a dice!