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?

Am I being misquoted again? Where did I ever say any nonsense about a Mother or Father having different rights? No where that's where, two posters are fabricating I did, please use write FACTS when quoting other posters.

I see all parents and Grandparents in this case, have now spoken to the press.

King Tut, no-one on this thread has denied that professionals can be fallible. However, in the cases where that has been demonstrated, it has tended to be because factual evidence has emerged - for instance, the error in statistical evidence, or clear medical evidence about the cause of, for instance, conditions like rickets. But that has come out because the professionals' opinions were challenged in court and/or were corrected on appeal. RM apparently doesn't want to challenge the court's findings by appealing or even by turning up at important hearings.

This case is rather different on a number of fronts. You repeatedly fail to engage with the facts of what RM did in terms of false allegations of drug abuse and her failure to bring up allegations of sexual abuse until very late stages in the proceedings when she didn't like the amount of access the father was getting. You also ignore the fact that she caused her child to be subjected to a wholly unnecessary examination for sexual abuse. It doesn't take an expert to tell us that all of that, coupled with determined attempts to keep her child's father out of his life, is abusive. Just coming on here and bleating that experts sometimes get things wrong doesn't change that. Can you contemplate the possibility, just for a moment, that experts also often get things right?

Kingtut,

My last post was in response to Twinklestein,

Apologies if I am mistaken in thinking you are responding to my PP.

Twinklestein, you can't generalise from your knowledge of a few QCs and judges. Much depends on the field of law they practise in and, of course, the number of cases they choose to take on. To suggest that they cannot know about children because they are QCs is a massive generalisation and really pretty offensive. Like Spero, I know and indeed have worked with a number of QCs who have a perfectly reasonable work/life balance.

I think its important to unpick the strands of this thread

Yes experts can get things wrong - but given all we have read and seen about this mother and her actions over past few days, does anyone seriously doubt that they are correct in their assessment of her?

But that bit doesn't worry me. What I find shocking is the assertion by quite a few people know that because a woman carries a child inside her, she is - by this process alone it seems - embued with parenting skills far beyond what a man can ever hope to achieve and therefore permitted to decide who is allowed in her child's life.

This is such unbelievable crap and can't survive 5 minutes on the many, many threads on here about abusive mothers and mother in laws.

Kyra Ishaq was starved to death by her mother. That poor little boy in Scotland beaten to death by his mother - I am ashamed to say I can't remember his name. Daniel Pelka beaten by his mother and step father. Karen Matthews and her great motherly love. Tracey Connolley. I could go on and on and on. Then I could fill a page with the names of all the fathers who have killed their children.

Pretty pointless and depressing exercise. But very clear that human beings are capable of enormous evil. Mothers are not exempt by virtue of motherhood.

Our case could be comparable to Rickets. It didn't come out until later. The children stayed with me. There were differences in opinions in our case and the Judge didn't agree with CAFCASS. It turned out CAFCASS were way off the mark, proven later by medical fact.

Opinions are that and not fact.

Please stop accusing me of stating Women should be awarded custody and such like because they are women I have never said anything like that.

My concern have been misogynistic posts which are ongoing and nonsense about professionals opinions in court cases.

Because I know they get it wrong I think due to publicity, and the state leaving E open to public shame, starting from scratch in the RM case is a good idea.

I haven't done this but I am prepared to bet that if I go through the Serious Case Reviews on the NSPCC website, I will find a pretty even split of children abused by mothers and fathers. In fact, I will make that a project of mine because I am getting pretty alarmed by all the unevidenced assertions being brought out on this thread.

Its already been two years in court King Tut, most of this little boy's life. How much longer does it have to go on? And where is he living in the meantime?

Proven my point. Anyone can read this thread not once did I say females should have residency due to being females. Several posters got it into their heads I had and ran with it, won't admit their error. Like dogs with bones barking up the wrong tree.

Just like professionals with issues they need to resolve involved in the lives of the vulnerable, in court.

I think that society needs to stop believing the idea that upon the separation of two parents the mother is automatically and unquestionably the parent that should be the person best placed to primarily care for the child and to decide and dictate how the relationship between child and father.

Logistically, the child may spend a little more time with the mother but mothers and fathers have so much to offer in different but equal measure that one parent's 'rights' should never trump that of the other parent.

I can understand why people support a presumption of 50/50 being a starting point for arrangements upon separation as it would prevent cases where a parent may have to fight for 'contact'.

But I can see why such a presumption may not be the panacea that those who support it think it would be.

In my own experience, regardless of the emotional and financial pain I have had to endure, and even though the situation was all due to my ex wife's terrible behaviour, I always fought for the relationship with my child and not 50/50 time rights and fortunately this has worked for our child who now naturally lives fairly equally at mum and dads.

The sadness in this case is that the mother couldn't bear for her child to have a loving relationship with the child, even though she could no longer have a living together relationship with the child's father.

And the result is what is happening now, when a parent hates the other parent more than they love their child.

King Tut, why do you keep saying that professionals get things wrong without addressing the facts in this case? What on earth do you think is to be gained by starting from scratch in this case? There are so many facts which RM doesn't question which demonstrate precisely why three different professionals have reached the views that they have. And the events of the last few days have surely strengthened the case against her. RM has been legally represented throughout, the facts have been presented without any glare of publicity and she has had every opportunity to challenge the case against her. Why, just because she abducted her child and has gone bleating to the papers, should we assume that she is entitled to start again?

It's not the state that has left RM open to public shame: it is highly unlikely that anyone outside the immediate family would have heard a thing about this case if she had simply chosen to obey the law.

Why does it all have to be about you King Tut? I didn't accuse you of saying that. But others did say it.

You just seem oddly keen to reframe all her behaviour in the most positive of light, even when that does violence to common sense - such as when you said she wanted photographs when she paraded her son in front of the media.

King Tut, with every respect, you seem to assume that virtually every post which is not supportive of RM is a response to your posts. It is perfectly clear that posts about, for instance, whether there is a presumption of custody in favour of mothers relate to other people's posts, not yours.

KingTut,

I have no idea who you are referring to when you posts, it is confusing.

There is a difference between taking experience into account and projection, you seem to be doing the latter.

I don't think contributors to the thread know who you are accusing of what.

Twinklestein at 21:19
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

There were differences in opinions in our case and the Judge didn't agree with CAFCASS. It turned out CAFCASS were way off the mark, proven later by medical fact.
opinions are that and not fact

But in the RM case, it is factual evidence that you are disputing?

It is fact that RM failed to make the various professionals aware of her fears that Ethan was being abused by his father until after her allegations that he used drugs were disproved.

It is fact that she took Ethan to hospital to be examined for signs of sexual abuse after she had been told that SocServ deemed her a risk to her son.

And it is fact that she failed to attend court, instead fleeing with Ethan for 17 days, depriving him of his home, pets, family and one of his primary carers.

It is also fact that she exposed Ethan to the media, inviting them to broadcast footage her her child. It is fact that she contradicted the words of her mums partner who admitted in court that they planned her disappearance in advance, in order to attract publicity for her case.

Given all those facts, whose opinion are you disputing?

Inkanta 21:23
*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*

There were a couple of others - hiddenhome for example felt comfortable saying that 'men do like their own way regardless'.

So I wasn't referring to you King Tut, sorry if you felt lumped in.

It is astonishing how easily some posters feel able to make sweeping and pejorative statements about men in general.

I wish that the media would refrain from using the term 'custody'.

It only hypes up the 'battle' this child is in the middle of due to the mothers actions.

Yes, these terms will never die. I somehow don't think 'Child Arrangements Order' and 'child will spend time with...' are going to catch on.

I like the sound of child lives and loves at mums house and dads house.

Doesn't quite have the dramatic undertones that the media love though I guess.

Thanks for clearing that up Spero, it's appreciated.

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

Are we, or are you veering off on a wild tangent?

I'm concerned about judges making decisions about child contact in cases like these with no training in child psychology and development full stop. I would much rather see the decisions made by a panel. This applies to male and female judges equally.

But in this case I find myself wondering if the judge actually really understands the impact on the child that cutting contact with the mother will have. The male QCs I know have not have not had hugely close intimate involvement in child-reading, which is why I question it in this case. It may be an issue, it may not be be, either way it's perfectly valid point.

Equally, when I hear a male judge making a comment in sex offence case against a minor that the girl was 'no angel' or led the defendant on etc I question his experience of women.

Perosnally I would like to see more female and ethnic minority QCs and judges and also people from more diverse backgrounds, because everyone brings different life experiences to the table.

You have a good idea there regarding training and a panel. How would that work? I thought Gove was on a new mission, I can't see him extending budgets for new training in these areas and for panels.

Twinklestein,

The Judge has to balance the impact of a child losing a father, which is what the mother would like to happen, with the mother having to demonstrate her ability to not emotionally abuse the child.

Anyone with using common sense can see that.

You seem to place huge importance on your perceived impact of a child temporarily losing significant contact with an proven emotionally abusive parent and place no importance on the damage that, had the mother had her way, the child would suffer as a result of losing the relationship with the father.