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?

I'm still hoping for something resembling a sane outcome here. As people have pointed out nobody knows the reality here except those involved.

I'm not entirely sure how the media are being unbiased here, they are reporting the facts. The woman has committed a criminal offense here by absconding with the child, I'm not entirely sure I want a media bias in favor of criminals.

On the facts that have been reported on she has acted indefensibly, if the court has acted in gross negligence and the father has been abusive then you can bet your bottom dollar it will come out now as this case will be put under a microscope now at all levels. In which case it will turn out she acted quite heroically here.

However if she did attempt to commit parental alienation then that will come out too. Unfortunately I fear she'll be thrown to the wolves to make an example. This I fear is not in the best interests of the little boy, I think she needs counseling and encouragement to realist she cannot have 100% control of the little one and has to engage responsibly with the dad. Only if she is incapable of doing so should the courts look at more severe sanctions.

I think it's pie in the sky thinking to insinuate all mothers are somehow automatically saintly and most dads are mustached twirling villans.

The reality here may be much more nuanced than this, she may be an exemplary mum apart from this, and with support and an earnest desire to sort her self out might go on to be a perfectly great mum.

However I don't think it's wise to assume the court fucked it up automatically. Otherwise really what good are courts in the first place? If we go back to mob rule I think we all know we'll end up worse off overall.

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.

But we don't even know whether she genuinely believes her actions are motivated by believing that the father is unsafe. She may in practice be motivated by an obsession with doing whatever it takes to keep her child to herself, or to spite her ex.

Yes, courts do get it wrong. But three independent people - the social worker, the guardian, and a child psychiatrist - who have had the chance to investigate in depth have all decided that the child is not at risk from his father, whereas he is at risk of emotional harm if he continues to live with his mother. The judge who has had the chance to read all the reports, hear and assess the witnesses and listen to the legal arguments, has concurred with that view. And the mother hasn't appealed. All of that seems to me to make it considerably more likely that the court has got it right.

I don't buy that she would still be trying to punish her ex after 2 years.
Maybe in the heat of the moment you may think or even say the other parent won't have access out of spite.
Would it really be spite after 2 years or concern over the safety of your child.
Wouldn't any of us do a runner with our child if this was going to happen to our children and we knew the father wasn't fit to parent.

"I don't buy that she would be doing it out of spite for over two years" (paraphrasing)

Then you have been very fortunate / sheltered. I know people who have held this sort of grudge after a messy divorce, without grounds, for decades.

Good post icimoi

a lot of projection going on on this thread. and as usual the "all men are bastards, all women are victims" attitude prevails.

If we take the view that the courts are in the wrong, and that all these experts are wrong and biased towards the father, then we have to take the view that in many cases the experts are also biased towards the mother and that many men are undeservedly being denied contact. But that won't go down well on mn will it, oh no.

The facts are that the court found the woman to have fabricated allegations against her ex, and instead of turning up to the hearing she went on the run. Hardly the actions of a responsible parent is it?

Even in the situations posters have talked about above, there have been none where only supervised contact with the mother has been advised. Even in cases of violence it is rare for only supervised contact to be granted.

And the "we don't know the facts," line is a cop out. Yes we do, we know the facts as the media have reported them and as have been outlined in the court judgements. As a poster stated above, if we stated that "we don't know the facts," in the case of e.g. ched Evans and the girl who alleged to have been raped by him there would be outcry and rightly so. So why is this different just because the gender roles are reversed.

And as also stated above, if this was a man on the run with his child mn would be calling for his bollocks on a plate by now.

There are women who obstruct contact with their children's fathers. In fact I have seen it suggested on mn that a man should have limited contact due to e.g. having had an affair/left the family home/ and children being held up as the mother's possession with the father being given contact on her terms. but I also know first-hand fathers who have been denied contact for no good reason other than that the mothers despised them.

Potatoprints,

Believe it, in my own case the spite lasted for 5 years!

How many posts do you read on here of ex's continual abuse that goes on for years.

I would say that in cases that go to court, Mothers do hold a great deal of power when the child is young but in this case the Mother was clearly being obstructive and attempting to destroy the relationship between the child and a loving father.

A so called loving Father was given residency of a little girl by SS and the courts. The bruise that killed her covered more than half her body, poor child. There was no evidence prior of his being a child murderer. I note his ex who described his DV behaviour, was ignored though.

KingTut,

There are rare tragic cases on both sides.

I hope that in this case mother and child are found safe and well.

There have been quite a few cases where the (wealthy/respectable/well-educated) father was portrayed as the victim of an irrational, spiteful, hysterical (penniless/non-white/past history of drug use or mental illness) former partner who wouldn't let him see his kids. Contact got enforced by coercive court measures. Then that 'wonderful' father either raped the kids or murdered both them and their mother, because he had been a monster all along, just better able to present himself as normal than a terrified woman with no one taking her side because, well, women are all cunts really and they tell lies, and look at her, she's obviously mental.

ONe can only hope that this isn't the case here.

but KingTut every case is individual. YOu simply cannot state that because in x case they got it wrong, in y case they did as well. The courts have judged on the facts as presented to them and have made the decision they deem to be in the best interests of the child.

there are plenty of women out there who murder their children as well, but we don't judge all women to be potential child killers do we? In fact usually women who murder their children are excused on the basis they must be mentally ill. why is it people are so reluctant to accept that there are just as many women out there who are capable of being abusive/manipulative as men....

I feel very sorry for Ethan. He has lost the home he has spent most of his time in and will lose most if not all of his contact with his mother. A lot rides on the professionals making the right decisions. I don't want to assume all mothers=good, all fathers=bad or indeed vice versa. I just wish we could have a better level of faith in the professionals than is suggested by some previous cases.

SGB,

There are also many cases but with the genders reversed.

What that has to do with this case though I'm not sure, it clearly isn't the case here.

There is limited research on Family annihilators but when it involves children the perpetrators are fairly equal in gender.

As I said before, I hope they find mother and child safe and well as she seems extremely desperate to deprive the child of a father.

I'd also rather have seen my children go in to care than live with their father, not out of petty vengeance, but because I love my children.

It's very tricky when you don't know the full facts.
But what I do know from friends is
The drugs test is bull shit, it's a hair sample they are prewarned about 'that's an interestingly short hair cut your sporting today'.

Unfortunately she's lost all credibility by running, she knows this. If what she feels is true than I can understand her desperation.

Contact does not always seem to go as to what is best for the child but best for the adult.

The thing is, if social workers fail you, if the judge fails you. Where do you go? Who do you seek for help? how do you protect the innocent childs interest?

Dress,

Do you mean that the Father was a danger to your children?

Actually I think the answer to that is glaringly obvious wannaBe, we still do live in a world where women are second class citizens.

I don't really begrudge some solidarity between women in the face of all that, even if that occasionally results in the indefensible actions of an individual being either condoned or mitigated.

If our society was overall a bit fairer it wouldn't happen at all. Individuals who do terrible things would be rightly condemned in public opinion.

You can examine an individual situation on its own merits, but people's own experiences all cause us to emotionally connect with these events personally.

There are sadly and rarely cases where the system fails the child but in this case the only person failing the child is his own mother.

What I meant was, even though you may be spiteful towards the other parent you would agree to access after this time, surely.
I can imagine myself being like this if it had happened to me, but not after 2 years. I must be very naive then.
I can however see how somebody would do a runner if they felt the system had failed to keep their child free and was going to give residency to an abuser.
Nobody really knows the full story, the media are given a release with certain info, that's all.

King tut, that story while tragic is one story

If you want to take that approach then a child is 2.4 times more likely to be killed by his mother than his father. So let's apply that to everything and give the father custody every time for their own safety.

Not sure why I'm engaging with you given your very limited understanding of the burden of proof

Also everyone bear in mind any time the courts get it right rarely get reported on, so we are all presented with the failures which stick in the mind and present a distorted narrative as a result.

'I don't buy that she would still be trying to punish her ex after 2 years.'

Eight years and counting in my DHs case. Sometimes it's easier just to deal. At least we get to see SD.

Of course my father is STILL carrying out (or attempting to carry out) a hate campaign against my mum some 25years after the final divorce papers.

Some people just don't know when to quit.

Dervel,

I don't think that is true at all. It is by far men that are regularly treated as second class citizens and parents upon family separation.