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 am pleased that twinkles post was accepted.
I said the same, obviously not so eloquently, and was shot down in flames.

What do you think about the mother parading her son infront of the daily mail cameras ?

voyage a commonality amongst all RMs supporters across the Internet seems to be an inability to acknowledge that question.
I can only assume that having been the apparent victim of a miscarriage of justice, RM is fully justified to behave in a way that places Ethan at further risk of emotional harm.

I know this case is not the same, because its it NOT medical, but, if you go onto the special needs boards, you will see 100's, 1000's of women being told they are emotionally abusive to their children, by many different health professional - nurses, doctors, health visitors, educational physcologists , social workers.

Later it turns out that the mothers are not emotionally abusive at all.

And this happens a lot. Not just the famous cases. But hundreds and hundreds of times. Thousands. In RL.

That's why the CEO of NAS (National Autistic Society) has been petitioned about the amount of mothers being bullied, by health professionals implying they are abusive.

I know this is not relevant to this case. I dont think such an injustice has occurred here.

But for those suggesting it is unlikely that so many health professionals can get it wrong. That this is unlikely. Please think again. Because it is more common than you realise.

voyage I was struck by the difference in her demeanour in her second interview compared to her first.

The extent of her grief at being separated from Ethan seemed extreme, given that they've spent 4 days a week apart since early this year. It's not a sudden and unfamiliar experience for either of them.

My guess is that it is likely that we'll hear what happens in court today, as I think it would be correct to know what, if any, sentence the mother faces for absconding with her child.

But aside from that, I hope that it is dealt with in private. I think the decision to make every effort to keep the boy out of the limelight is entirely correct.

Peruvian, I do think mum parading ds infront of TV cameras was really bad.

I don't think there has been an injustice here. Re this case.

But I was just planting the seed of thought, though not in this case, but sometimes, an injustice does happen.

Just de-railing the thread a tiny bit. Just trying to make people understand that these injustices do happen. And that they are very damaging. Only to the parent admittedly. But still. Not good.

AuntieStella,

I think it is too late to keep anything private at this stage, necessarily so.

Interesting that the father is quoted to want to keep the child out of the limelight. If only the mother had put the child's best interests above her own then she wouldn't be in this sorry mess.

Her supporters probably don't mind her parading the kid around, as it allows them to rubberneck. What the Mail does is highly unethical though.

whats a tabloid to do? The family admit that they deliberately plotted to use the media - and when someone dangles such a tempting a carrot on a stick, the journo's can't resist, can they?

Given that we cannot 'know' everything about anything, we make the best decisions we can on what we have got.

I am quite comfortable with my 'presumptions' given what I have read about her behaviour, a lot of it coming from her own mouth.

I do take your point Chaise, but I think this is simply not comparable with a vulnerable mother being harassed by professionals who have made a medical mis diagnosis.

This process has gone on for years, her allegations were tested in court and she couldn't prove them. The father was able to provide evidence to rebut her assertions, such as a clean drugs test and evidence from a child psychiatrist that he had a warm relationship with his son.

She will be sentenced this morning in Bristol Crown Court. That judgment will also be published and I wait with interest to see how some posters will interpret the clear words in that.

Likewise Spero,

I think it will be interesting to see how people interpret the imminent judgement.

From reading comments across the internet, I'd take a guess that around 20% are of the 'mothers can do no wrong and should always be primary carers, what a travesty of justice' kind.

I'd also be happy to presume that the mother planned all of this, including the media attention but the imprisonment of her mother and boyfriend has made her realise she has cannot manipulate the court and now the tears are in full flow.

For the child's sake, I think it is going to take some serious work for her to play a full parental role in her child's life.

I've often seen it stated on mumsnet, usually in response to a women asking for help with their partners ex obstructing contact, 'if she's so bad then why hasn't he got custody?'

This mother has behaved appallingly, for several years, but God forbid the father could be the main caregiver whilst the mother has to prove herself a fit mother.

I know that mothers face terrible scenarios in family courts but a father facing unfounded false allegations in the family court will have to prove himself over and over again even though no adverse findings have been found.

and no one bats an eyelid when a father has to go through the humiliation of contact centres for a couple of hours in an effort to prove himself.

a couple of hours 'contact' a fortnight I mean for several months I mean.

Exactly. This is what makes abusive parents so dangerous. I think a lot of them are incapable of recognising that their child is a separate human being with separate needs and wishes. Instead the child is simply another aspect of them and their relationship with the child is seen in terms of how it makes them feel.

I think it's highly likely that RM herself suffered abusive parenting or that something happened to so stunt her emotional development, and I think we all feel sad for her, if that is the case.

But whether she is a victim herself or was simply born with such narcissistic character traits, it doesn't change the impact of her behaviour on her son and it is against that he requires protection.

Spero,

I did say previously that I haven't seen any mention of RM's relationship with her own father. Only mention of her mother's boyfriend, the one that has just been jailed, if I am correct.

Chaise, I don't think you can take it that people accept Twinklestein's post about experts. The lack of response stems from the fact that it was made in the middle of the night. The plain fact is that there is nothing controversial in saying that experts make mistakes; no-one on here denies that. But that takes us no further - it is not a demonstration that they have made such a mistake in this case. So I'm not sure why you repeat the point given that, as you acknowledge, it is not relevant to RM's case.

As a long-term inhabitant of the special needs boards, I have to say that the thousands of people on there that you quote being told that they are emotionally abusive are unknown to me. Yes, there are plenty of people whose views about their children's needs are the subject of disagreement by local authority SEN departments, but that is not the same thing and tends to be strongly related to budget constraints.

It is equally incorrect for Twinkestein to suggest that evidence about abuse is based only on impressions. Experts in that field will tell you that it is considerably more; not least, in this case, the child's demeanour and actions, the fact that there was no physical evidence about drug abuse, and that someone who genuinely believes their ex is sexually abusing their child tends not to wait to the 11th hour to say so.

Sonny - yes you did and I think it an excellent, if chilling point. Where is her dad in all of this? Was she a child denied a relationship with her father? Or was he abusive to her? Whatever happened, not a mention of him can I find.

Yes, agree ichimoi. Can I go on record that I don't accept most of what Twinklestein says about anything so please forgive me if I forget to specifically disagree with every post she makes.

This is what makes abusive parents so dangerous. I think a lot of them are incapable of recognising that their child is a separate human being with separate needs and wishes. Instead the child is simply another aspect of them and their relationship with the child is seen in terms of how it makes them feel.

Given the number of supporters RM has, it raises the question as to whether this kind of abuse of DCs is as widespread.
Are "people" supporting RM because, like her, they consider their own child to be an extension of themselves?

It's a family court hearing this morning in Bristol (not a crown court sentencing) and the judgment is unlikely to be published.

It's a hearing in open court so judgment will be published

I assume it's in the Crown court as there are no cells at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre, and custody is an option here.

Peruvian - sadly yes. I think this kind of attitude is widespread. It's reflected in high levels of mental distress felt by many of the population, increasing diagnosis of depression,etc.