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?

No, I think I am the misogynist?

But its hard to be sure. My MV is a bit peeved, I can tell you.

KingTut - I have heard many similar stories about CAFCASS and their influence and agenda in court. The outcomes of which can be unfair and unjust.

I will agree on the number of hours worked by QC's and Judge's. I even had a barrister say to me that Judge's can be very out of touch. It isn't a gender issue though, it's a lifestyle/education/background issue.

It's mainly a lifestyle/education/background issue, however female QCs/judges have often taken time out to raise their own children when they are young. If so, they're more likely to have been intimately involved in child-rearing for a time.

That's not to say that you don't get very out of touch comments on a range of issues from female judges, absolutely you do. My comments only apply to child-rearing.

And I have heard many, many stories from parents about how unjustly they were treated. then they send me the judgements in their case so I can do a pro bono advice on appeal. And I see the findings that were made against them. And the whole story takes on a different hue. And I have to sit here and watch them parade their tales of injustice all over the internet.

They alarm and terrify the vulnerable and desperate. It is very wrong.

Of course experts get things wrong. But not on the scale alleged by some on this thread. Scaremongering helps no one.

Spero,

Oh dear! A magic vagina doesn't sound quite so appealing all of a sudden.

Absolutely seriously, Twinklestein. The upside of being a barrister is not having to do strict office hours and being able to block out specific days - like those school parents' evenings - when they will not be available for court work. The suggestion that they know nothing of family life and the realities of parenthood purely because of workload is obviously incorrect

Ok Twinkelstein. Gloves off.

My daughter was in nursery from 7 months old. Am I allowed - in your world - to have an opinion about her development and her emotional needs?

We are sailing dangerously, dangerously close here to you apparently arguing that women should not work if they have children.

Is that what you are saying? If not, just what ARE you saying? I may just be blinded by irritation at the moment and the full nuance of your argument is passing me by.

I am aware that on mumsnet, referring to the Daily Mail is decidedly poor form but I have just seen the exclusive and tearful interview (published on the eve of a court hearing) of the mother.

Make what you will of it, but this woman does not convince me for one second. It's as though she admits to using her son during the previous footage in order to show the world just how happy they are together in order to garner sympathy for her 'plight'.

No doubt people will feel sorry for her.

sonny my point is that courts are there to apply justice on behalf of society.

If the majority of society believe that women should not be subject to scrutiny when subject to family court proceedings then, much as I disagree with it, changes should be made.

The debate in relation to this case has exposed a need to revisit whether the family courts are representative of wider society.

Hey ho. At least I will keep working and paying my mortgage. There will be no shortage of crap parents, spreading their poison around, running their children's chances of forming healthy and happy relationships in adulthood, so they mess up their own children and on it goes, on it goes.

but it's ok - in fact it's more than ok! Its NATURE. Mummy loves you! So whatever she does to you has to be right because she does it out of LOVE you see.

Philip Larkin was so right. Get out as quickly as you can, and don't have any kids yourself.

Peruvian - I strongly disagree.

Societies over time have been quite convinced that black people were worth less than livestock, that women had no right to be educated, that gay people should go to prison.

Fuck society. Sometimes it has to be made to listen.

Peruvian,

I would very much doubt that the majority of society would ever believe that women should not be subjected to the scrutiny when making serious allegations in the family court.

I strongly disagree that the debate in relation to this case has exposed a need to revisit whether courts are representative of wider society.

I believe it shows just how little wider society understands why the family courts have to make these decisions and a lack of understanding of how atrociously some mothers can behave upon family separation.

I believe it has also exposed just how much wider society believes that mothers should be untouchable, are incapable of abuse and controlling behaviour and can never be wrong.

Unless it's your MIL.

I think it highlights how badly some fathers are treated upon family separation and shows the hell they can go through to have a relationship with their own child.

I think there are people and organisations that don't want wider society to know about that.

To whom should they listen? You, RM, many or a Dictator?

Why, Katie Hopkins of course!

They should listen to the truth. And if they won't, history will march on without them as it has done in all other examples of denial of fundamental human rights through prejudice and bigotry.

On the Katie Hopkins note - goodnight god bless.

What is the truth? Opinions of professionals?

Who we know do get it wrong,that is a fact. It happened to us. It was proven their opinions were wrong by actual facts in medical tests.

People misquoting on this thread and pretending it didnt happen?

Inkanta,

I was clearly joking and referring to her ridiculous article on this case.

Kingtut,

I really genuinely do not understand you last post.

Can you explain further?

I know Sonny - good night god bless on that light note.

Night Inkanta

The bond is beause you're her mother Spero, you carried her in your body, connected with her as an infant - far more about direct personal experience of hands-on child-rearing than magic vaginas.

I don't know if it's a SE/SW circuit thing, but ime London QCs and judges you just never see. My grandfather was a judge, two of my cousins are QCs, one of my best friends is married to one, and growing up one of my closest friend's father was a QC, later a judge, along with other family friends, one of whom was a famous writer/QC. I don't think I could even estimate the number of other solicitors and barristers I know. In short my experience is based on more than one example.

If they're successful they don't have much time between cases and when they're on one they're leaving the house at 6-7am and returning at 9, 11 maybe 2 am; and they're essentially incommunicado, you can't even text them. The money is good which brings its own benefits, but the downside is you don't really get to see them much. Their partners have to be able to cope with running the family as a single-parent. It's true that between cases they may be at a loose end, but it's not predictable or regular, so you can't set any store by it.

All of this is wild generalisation, but I can't think of anyone that I know personally who stands outside this pattern.

The truth - is that which is set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted mainly by English lawyers in response to the horrors of the Second World War where the Nazis were quite sure that Jew, Gypsies, the disabled and the gay should all be done away with as untermensch.

The ECHR thus protects fundamental rights to life, freedom from torture and the right to respect for private and family life. It is a child's right to know both his/her parents.

To say that RM is allowed to deny her child a fundamental human right because she is a mother is just bonkers and wrong.

And if the majority of society really think that then they need to think again. I appreciate that even idiots are allowed to have an opinion, a al Katie Hopkins. But we certainly don't have to pander to their idiocy and give it a platform.

Well Twinklestein, I know personally many who stand outside your pattern. Maybe we are just better at organising our work life balance on the Western Circuit?

The QCs I know all have young children. And all spend a lot of time with them.

So there you go.

Biology dictates that a mother carries a child during pregnancy.

That does not equate to a mother being a good mother.

That does not give the right to deprive a child a father.

If people believe that mothers are better parents then the problems will never end.