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?

Twinklestein, why do you say that you wonder whether the judge understands the impact "that cutting contact with the mother will have"?

From the 12th June judgment: "I do not understand there to be any suggestion from anyone that the mother should be deprived of all contact with Ethan in the future."

Despite everything RM has done, no-one is suggesting that her right to contact be removed.

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

In this case, the judge has, over the course of three years ordered that Ethan has supervised contact with his father in the presence of his mother, have more or less equal care provided by both parents, and, most recently, that Ethan live with his dad and have supervised contwct with his mum.

The judge has never "cut contact" between Ethan and his mother and the way in which the judge has made decisions over time suggests that he understands only to well the impact that separating a child from his parent can have.

I am afraid I don't see a tangent but rather a pretty straight line. Your arguments are discriminatory and sexist in their purist form - you assume competence in child rearing by virtue of femaleness alone and rely on your personal experience of workaholic male lawyers to prove this point?

Judges are already advised and assisted by experts in their field. But this government has already cut down access to experts and will cut it even more.

So while a panel might be good in an ideal world, king tut hits the nail on the head about the financial realities of our brave new world.

But if they don't read the facts, people will often only see what they want to see.

Wasn't it a female judge who was criticised recently for suggesting that different standards be applied to parents from other cultures in relation to child abuse issues? And I can think of at least three female judges I have come across who demonstrate a singular lack of understanding of children. I can also think of a number of very competent judges of both sexes.

Generalising about the gender of judges with reference to their life experiences is, frankly, incredibly superficial. The reality is that no judge can have training in every area of expertise that they may have to deal with in the course of their daily work. That is why expert witnesses are needed.

Come on now Spero,

Women can't possibly be discriminatory and sexist, especially not within same sentence, please.

Family court proceedings are often heard by panels of trained, unpaid magistrates in many areas - is this a possible solution?

Rather than refer the more complex cases to a judge, leave them all in the hands of magistrates, advised by experienced clerks?

Expert witnesses in court can no longer hide as they once could. Opening their reports and opinions up to be screwtenised, can only be a good thing.

I could very easily completely wrong, please do not take this as a statement of fact and Spero could set me straight but...

is there any truth in Magistrates being less reliable than District Judges in the family courts?

From all the compulsive research I was doing during the first couple of years in my case I seem to remember a feeling of being glad to be in the county court with a Judge.

To be honest, the thought of leaving really complex issues about child care to lay magistrates fills me with horror. I have come across far too many distinctly iffy decisions from lay benches even in relatively straightforward criminal cases.

It is a few years back but I definitely remember reading about cases that had been before magistrates and feeling a sense of 'well at least I'm in county court with a Judge'.

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.

So you can generalise about the the QCs you have worked with but I cannot?

When you worked with them how much did you see of their home life? The impression of a good work/life balance and seeing what they're personally involved in at home is not the same thing.

I totally agree that individuals choose their own workload, and the type of law is an issue. The ones I know are in litigation, criminal and family law, but the workload isn't noticeably different.

I didn't say male judges 'cannot know about children', I said they may have had less direct personal involvement in child-rearing.

This isn't really specific to law, in 2015 the traditional pattern of male partner as breadwinner, female either SAHM or part time work around childcare is still prevalent.

I'm not sure that expert witnesses ever could assume that they could hide, King Tut. Most cases other than those involving children and vulnerable people are held in open court. Even in closed court proceedings, the opinions of experts are obviously fully subject to scrutiny by counsel and experts on the other side, detailed cross examination and contradiction by other experts, it's not as if they can ever assume that their views will be accepted unquestioningly.

In your case, would you really have wanted the reports of experts about your child to be publicised for the entire world to gawp over and for a load of strangers to comment on on the internet?

Icimoi - contact has been cut from 3 days a week to supervised sessions. I didn't mean nor did I say cut completely.

Twinklestein, where on earth have I generalised about QCs? I haven't denied that some QCs are workaholics, I have simply pointed out that not all of them are and that it is not inherent to the job that you have to be workaholic.

Oh mumsnet, you so crazy.

Twinklestein, what alternative can you see to supervised contact for this mother, given that she has openly said that she would abduct her child again and prevent him from seeing his father?

I am afraid I don't see a tangent but rather a pretty straight line. Your arguments are discriminatory and sexist in their purist form - you assume competence in child rearing by virtue of femaleness alone and rely on your personal experience of workaholic male lawyers to prove this point?

Well if that's what you take from this discussion I can't actually be bothered to argue with you, it's too silly.

contact has been cut from 3 days a week to supervised sessions. I didn't mean nor did I say cut completely.

That judgement was made after Rebecca had fled.

Despite Rebecca making such a poor choice, the judge still deemed that Ethan should have contact with his mum.

Twinkle,

"Cutting contact" did make it sound like you mean completely but regardless, why would you focus on the impact of a child seeing an emotionally abusive in circumstances that would hopefully prevent the mother from continuing to abuse the child as being more harmful to the child than the mother being able to continue her abuse of the child freely.

In family court proceedings the children are not identified, now the experts are, not long ago they were able to hide.

Our documents were leaked without court permission and read by goodness knows who, my children are not impressed and one is ready to launch an almighty campaign, I did a few years ago. Court Coul not care less I think they may when my child goes nuclear.

Peruvian,

I may be wrong but I believe that supervised contact was ordered before she fled due to her make more false allegations of abuse and having subjected the child to the ordeal of being examined at hospital.

You generalised that the QCs you worked with had a good work/life balance.

The ones that I know I wouldn't describe as workaholics.

Why did the Dr afree to abuse a child out of interest? Did they not report higher up before undertaking the examination?

A corgi puppy.

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b8/7a/a5/b87aa5bacb53dea72907a5eb3cc1ee08.jpg