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?

This is her latest social media message.

*"That heart-breaking moment when you see that the little seed your baby planted weeks and weeks ago has finally started to grow, and he's not here to see it," she wrote.

"To say I'm devastated is an understatement, I have today read all the support from all of you and am speechless.

"I am preying (sic) that this case gets re looked at properly and the judge can see that my son belongs with his mama who absolutely loves him to bits.

"Think you all know how much I adore Ethan. Two years of hell, but would do it over and over if it meant he was safe with me. Xx"

In another post on a separate page, Ms Minnock wrote: "To all the mums and dads fighting for their children: please keep going and never give up.
"I will never give up on keeping my beautiful baby safe."*

I'm starting to think that she has a mental health issue.

The allegations she made against Ethan's father were false so why exactly does she think that she deserves custody of Ethan?

KingTut,

Why on earth would a fresh investigation be needed?

To quote the Judge " There has been an exceptionally high level of
investigation and three major court hearings in which the mother’s allegations against the
father have all been rejected. If the mother had any valid dissatisfaction with the orders of
the District Judge she could have sought permission to appeal from them as is provided by
Rule 30 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010; she did not do so."

"The father, who has suffered immense emotional and financial stress from these
proceedings also and has had to fight off false allegations over a number of years, has
responded appropriately to court orders and has complied with them; if he had behaved as
the mother has done, how would she regard his actions?"

"it's just RM that has lost faith in the court system"

Wow! Again, blame anyone but the mother, this is all because she's just lost faith.

Calling an abusive mother out on her behaviour is not conducive to misogyny.

Please do not misquote me.

I referred to my Barrister explaining the power that mothers of young children can wield in the family court, if they so wish. And the lengths that some father have to go to in order to take that power of them and their children away.

Yes, it says that just as the father in this case has, I have had to endure false allegation and false allegation, take the correct action and always be respectful, civil and never respond in a negative way.

My child now has two loving parents and lives fairly equally with us both.

I'm far from perfect but what does that say about me?

'power over the father and child relationship' I mean.

Urgh I just knew she'd be a Facebook oversharer...

Vile woman.

'Could you possibly expand on why you would feel sorry for her.'

I feel sorry for the son as well. We don't know the whole story but she got quite desperate there. I hope there is a way she can maintain contact with her son. He needs both parents whether or not one or both of them fucked up.

Yes power and control are so very important to you.

The mother and her 'followers' are doing her absolutely no favours with their 'campaigning' whatsoever.

They are undoubtedly harming any remnants of a case she had.

Her photo shoots, interviews in front of her child and facebook campaigning are cringe worthy.

I also wonder why they split up in the first place - just out of interest. Was she a woman scorned and perhaps very angry with him?

Very emotive and demeaning language.

KingTut

Can you actually read?

I was describing the power and control that my ex (a mother) had by making false allegations and using our child as a weapon and the need to gently remove it over time to enable our child to benefit from having two parents.

I held no power, no control. I have never sought to hold any power over my ex. She wanted the power and control.

If you cannot understand what I am saying, why not ask me, instead of making sarcastic comments and rolling of your eyes.

Hmm.. We have no idea what allegations Ms Minnock made about her ex. It seems that the SS/psychiatrist did not believe her. Unless we know what the allegations were, whether the people around the couple had witnesses the behaviour she alleged, we have no way of knowing whether the right call was made.

As to the obstruction of contact we know very little about that either. It may be that she intentionally tried to deny him contact to be difficult, or it may be that she had concerns about his capabilities as a father and wanted to protect her son.

Either way, I think the child should have come first. Even if the mother had maliciously obstructed contact I don't think a 3 year old should be disadvantaged by taking its mother away. She should have had her knuckles rapped and warned that she would be in contempt of court if she didn't cooperate. I also don't think that male judges really have the experience to be making these kinds of decisions.

You don't know when to give up do you.

I'm not going to engage with you, it's pathetic.

'Even if the mother had maliciously obstructed contact I don't think a 3 year old should be disadvantaged by taking its mother away'

Yes I agree with that Seems very harsh on the child.

I also wonder why they split up in the first place - just out of interest. Was she a woman scorned and perhaps very angry with him?

I would be wary of ascribing misogynist stereotypes on the basis of little evidence.

Wow! A new twist. So no male judges can't adjudicate on cases involving children?

Just when I think this thread has plumbed the depths of idiocy, I am surprised anew.

A child will be gravely disadvataged all his life by being raised by an emotionally abisive woman.

It's about weighing the short term harm of his distress at separation against the long term damage to his ability to grow up free from the shadow of his mother's delusions.

Twinklestein - I would like to understand why she behaved the way she did. All behaviour means something. And although we don't know right now the background history we are bound to be curious. As OP says will we ever get to the bottom of the truth.

Who used those words other than you, Spero?

OMG! It's like Groundhog Day on this thread!

What was harsh was the mother stopping her son having a relationship with his father. She repeatedly made false allegations against him, she broke various contact orders. The current judgement has been the final straw.

She is in the wrong, she can't share nicely. So why should her son be deprived of his father.

She is the cause of her son loosing his mother no one else

Spero why do you mention only one gender in those statements regarding a child's welfare?

Spero,

WTF fatigue accurately describes the feeling.

Some people comment without reading the publicly available judgements in this case and are unwilling to accept that a mother can harm her child.

Because this case is about what appears to be an emotionally abusive woman.

Spero mentions only one gender because in this case, it is the mother causing the damage to her child's welfare.

Spero - we don't yet know if the mother is abusive or deluded. She did at least behave badly if she did in fact make false allegations against the father. If true does that mean she can never redeem herself and make amends, and never have contact with her son?

Why not refer to a name or state parent, why use gender? Looks like misogyny to me.