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?

King Tut, can you point to even one solid reason for believing that the court might have got it wrong in this case? Just sitting there saying they don't get it right in 100% of cases takes us no further. And don't you think that if they had, the mother might have appealed? I have to repeat, most of the salient facts are on record - Rebecca Minnock undoubtedly did try to keep her child away from his father, she did make up drug abuse allegations that were disproved, she then made allegations of further abuse which weren't proved even after medical examination, and she finally abducted her child rather than let him visit his father. Those are not matters of professional opinion, they are fact.

It is possible that this woman is motivated by a belief that her son is not safe with his dad, that the allegations of drug abuse and inappropriate sexual behaviour are true but he has managed to hide them from all professionals involved in the case. That she absconded with her son really believing it was in his best interests.

However I think that it just seems much more likely that the findings of the court are in fact true, that the father was innocent and deserved a relationship with his child. That in fact it was the mother behaving inappropriately, in terms of blocking any contact, putting her child under stress and finally illegally absconding with him. All the facts as we have them seem to point to this version of events. I would assume she genuinely loves her child but is eaten up with bitterness towards her ex and unable to put her own feelings of anger and dislike aside in order to let her son have a relationship with his dad.

To me that just seems by far the more likely case here.

How did RM come up with those figures in the Sally Clark case? He worked outside his field of excellence, it was his opinion and nobody picked it up, none of anything he said was a fact.

Of course professionals can get it wrong. They are fallible human beings. Of course any kind of unlikely or improbable thing could have happened.

But look at what went on here. She had years to prove her case. She had a lawyer - I assume on tax payers money. There was a guardian. A LA social worker. an eminent child psychiatrist who saw child and father together.

I work on the assumption that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.

So it's either a massive corrupt conspiracy to get this child with his dad (why? What's in it for them? Is dad bribing them?) OR she is an irrrational, controlling woman with little or no insight into her child's needs.

Which do you think is more likely?

Not a conspiracy, just imperfect people not doing their job properly.

What? All of them getting their jobs wrong? That's not imperfect beings. ...that's a catastrophe.
The chances of all of them getting it wrong individually must be minute.

But, King Tut, Dr Berelowitz was working squarely within his field of expertise, as were the guardians and social workers.

King Tut, yes, professionals get it wrong sometimes. Rather more frequently, witnesses in court cases tell lies and parents make untrue allegations against each other. Given the facts which even RM does not deny, which is more likely in this case?

I've come across women like Rebecca before....very odd women mostly. They make all manner of unfounded allegations against the father and the fathers family. They are rare but they are out there.

One gets one bit wrong, another works from that wrong piece and builds a case from there, impacted by the odd mistake or misinterpretation here and there, easily done.

Then appeal - like Sally Clarke did.

Or even turn up to your own bloody court hearing.

Don't run off to the Daily Mail. How much do you think they are paying her? What's the countdown to the first 'sad face' interview do you think?

So what do you say they got wrong here, King Tut? Bearing in mind that many of the central facts are not in dispute.

KingTut - so what do you think should happen next? Ethan be left with his mother maybe under heavy supervision from SS while the dad is investigated again?

KingTut - my (limited) experience of fairly similar family court proceedings would not tally with that argument.

For example, a LA social worker (several actually) had been involved for 2 years prior to family court proceedings, with numerous assessments, plans etc. however when proceedings began a CAFCASS social worker still did an independent assessment without information from the LA social worker, just based on the court application. The findings happened to be the same, but surely this shows that things don't snowball from one professional misjudging things?

Not being pedantic, just curious whether my experience was unusual in that respect?

If she genuinely thought Ethan was at risk, why is she talking about what she's done in front of her child?? If she genuinely was trying to protect him, why didn't she ask for someone else to watch him in another room or do the interview another time?

She is on TV demonstrating her total disregard for how her actions are impacting her son. That blows the incompetent professional argument out of the water for me.

Which Dr Berelowitz was it please? There are 2 famous ones. Was it Mark?

Chaise, I don't think anyone on here has any more sources of information on the case than you do.

The published judgements refer to Dr Berelowitz as 'he' so if the two distinguished ones you are thinking of are Mark and Sue then I'd go for the former. No idea if there are any other eminent Berelowitzes in this field.

The published judgements also refer to two organisations 'Contact Matters' and 'Core Assets' who made assessments in 2013.

It was Mark.

Not a conspiracy, just imperfect people not doing their job properly.

Let's say, for one moment, that you are right, and that all the professionals in this case were imperfect.

What explanations are there for Rebecca's contradictory behaviour and actions?

She registered Ethan's birth alongside his dad, and Ethan took his dad's name - which she had to agree to as they are not married.
A few weeks later, their relationship breaks down and she withholds contact; subsequently justifying her action to prevent Ethan seeing his dad at that point by saying he was a risk to Ethan, even when supervised by herself.
if that was true, why did she register Ethan with his Dad's name?
She alleged that Ethan's dad takes drugs. Those allegations were investigated, during which period, Ethan did not spend any regular time with his dad.
No evidence was found to support the allegations of drug taking, so contact was ordered.
Rebecca then alleged that Ethan's dad was abusing him. Contact is stopped while the allegations are investigated.
why did Rebecca wait until after contact had been ordered to resume before she mentioned her belief that Ethan was being abused?
There was no evidence that these allegations are true, so contact resumes, with Ethan spending 4 days a week with his dad.
If Rebecca believed her own allegations and that Ethan was at risk, why didn't she flee with Ethan then in order to protect him?
Rebecca got told that SocServ were recommending that Ethan lives with his Dad and she took him to a hospital alleging further sexual abuse.
Why did she wait until the night before the court hearing to have Ethan examined again?

And why, oh why, did she say in her interview with the DM that her decision to flee was a spur of the moment decision, when her mums partner had gone on court record as saying it was planned the night before, resulting in him being jailed for 28 days?

I appreciate that Rebecca will have her defenders, particularly on Mumsnet but come on the facts are there. You can't just bleat that the professionals have got it wrong and that it caused a domino effect as that could be said in any court case. They found no proof that Rebecca's allegations were true, to find no proof means that the father tested clean for drugs etc and that there were no signs of sexual abuse when Ethan was examined.

I honestly think that some people are projecting and that they can't accept that not all exes are complete and utter bastards.

To be honest PeruvianFoodLover sums it up well.

She sounds irresponsible at best and at worse well I better not say. I hope Ethan stays with his Father who sounds a lot more sensible and honest and has not gone running to the papers. Even her family lied to the police and courts. If she gets custody because of this it's a travesty of justice.

There's no way she'll get residence after this. She'd lost it anyway, and this has only made things a lot, lot worse.

There has been no mention of the hell that the father has been through.

Custody means fuck all, residence means fuck all. Absolutely fuck all.

Being a parent and co parenting mean's everything.

They're going to have to look at a custodial sentence, aren't they, having taken a hard line with the family members involved.