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?

PFL: Interesting points. I remember reading some years back of a father who decided that it would be better to back off rather than keep dragging the child back to court. As I recall he regretted the decision later, and more so when he did get back in touch with his DS (who was an adult by then).
I suppose the key thing to remember is that every case is different and needs to be treated as such and investigated thoroughly.

Oh, I thought Peruvian's post was about a debate in an academic/hypothetical sense. I didn't see victim blaming there. If she had said specifically that Ethan's dad must be abusive and his mum an innocent put-upon woman, that would be victim blaming, but I didn't see it like that.

Do the children actually have to go to Court as well then? I assumed that they'd be at school and would only be brought in if the Judge wanted to talk to them.

Asking people to own their decisions and take responsibility is not victim blaming and I think it irresponsible and unhelpful to suggest that.

Relationships are a dynamic between two people.

Very interesting discussion Peruvian. You have summed up precisely the dilemma. Which harm is the worst? Sadly, we usually don't know until many years have gone by.

Can you imagine if Ethan's dad's new partner came on MN and posted that her new DP had a child that he never saw because of this story?

He would be accused of calling his ex a pyscho, he could be a liar and an abuser, its a hhuuugggeee red flag and she should LTB, because if it were true he would have tried everything in his power and never stopped trying for contact.

given that he it has been insinuated that he is a liar and an abuser its that that much of a stretch to see.

I think SGB's points are actually fairly reasonable. I think no contact with a sociopath/psychopath parent is going to produce a better outcome for a child.

However the rest of the post seems a bit muddled. On the one hand fathers shouldn't override the wishes of the mother if she doesn't want her child involved, and yet at all times they must be always financially responsible. Unless you are advocating a state of affairs where women have all the choices and men can only hope to have responsibilities? If so fair enough, but that isn't a scenario I couldn't remotely support or agree with. Neither do I support the reverse of men having all the choices and women just the responsibility.

I hope an equitable middle ground can be found.

jux my understanding is it is rare that a child actually 'attends' a court hearing (it does happen), but repeated court applications result in interviews with professionals by order of the court and (in the case of allegations) examinations for the child.
It can be incredibly disruptive for a child. There was a case reported in the press a couple of years ago that had been ongoing for over 10 years; the child had been spoken to by professionals on over 40 separate occasions.

It is better than Ethan is not with his mother IMHO. I read the Mother has been emotionally abusive to her child and has told lies and made false accusations against the father. That is totally despicable.

SGB

Now, now, don't backtrack! You finally stated what you really believe! Let's pull up your quotes.

You started by saying: "better a child loses contact with an essentially harmless father than a child is hurt or killed by a dangerous but plausible one."

Then STDG asked How is it better for the child who is robbed of a decent relationship with their 'essentially harmless' father?"

And then you said: Because contact with biological parents is not essential. Plenty of children grow up happy and healthy despite the fact that their fathers have fucked off and never shown any interest in them. It's a matter of risk, that's all.

So your point wasn't that children need to be protected from abusive fathers, your point was that children don't need fathers anyway, so there is no need to worry about preserving that relationship. In other words: if he's abusive, they are saved from an abusive father but if he's not, no harm, no foul! Kids don't need fathers and are fine without them.

Like I said, it's just good to hear people be honest about what they really think instead of walking the line of what they think is "acceptable" to say.

Also, we should apply this more generally. Why not allow social services to sever parental rights of both parents if any allegation of abuse is made against them?

because contact with biological parents is not essential. Plenty of children grow up happy and healthy despite the fact that their [mothers and] fathers have fucked off and never shown any interest in them. It's a matter of risk, that's all.

that first bolded statement is true.

And the second statement is true too. ONE good, loving parent is enough.

The fact that both of these statements are true in isolation isn't the same as saying children don't need their fathers anyway. That is a leap. We'd all like Pa Walton for our kids. It's not always what's on offer though.

The first statement is nonsense and the law correctly disagrees. We set an evidentiary standard because we believe that it's better that occasionally a child is left with an abusive parent rather than all children taken from innocent parents.

In the same way we don't jail everyone accused of a crime without a trial because as a society we accept a standard of innocent until proven guilty and that society would get dark real quick.

ONE good, loving parent is enough.

Says who? Anyway why stick with one biological parent when we can adopt out to two awesome vetted adoptive parents? If this is about minimizing risk, why are we letting people with MH issues keep their children? Or poor women? Or women with DV histories? You can't use risk minimization to justify excluding innocent fathers and then ignore it for everyone else.

that first bolded statement is true. It is also extremely inflammatory.

Surely a better statement might have been;

"better a child loses contact with an essentially harmless PARENT than a child is hurt or killed by a dangerous but plausible one."

Though I am still thinking about that...

In the Minnock case, I see the mother as being manipualative and therefore possibly dangerous.

I can't believe that Rebecca Minnock didn't get jail time.

This is now a green light to other abusive parents who want to live their lives like they are in EastEnders or similar.

She may yet. I think I got a bit carried away and thought she would be sentenced today but the Judge - quite sensibly - is going to hear arguments from all parties now about what should happen.

I am very torn - I think a clear message should go out that there are consequences for this kind of behaviour, BUT some people are going to take the message that she is a martyr to a noble cause, so maybe its better we don't give them that satisfaction.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to not send a clear message by way of punishment.

It is, of course, best of all for children to have more than one loving, involved, competent adult in their lives. Most children get that. Some children are really unlucky and get more than one abusive parent and the state is never involved because some abusive parents are smart enough to be able to cover their tracks and present a respectable front.
My point was that when there is a dispute between parents which goes to court and there are allegations of abuse (which is, in the majority of cases, going to be abuse by the father) then in terms of potential risk/harm to the child, losing the relationship with a father who is harmless is less bad than being placed in the care of a father who is dangerous.
Because in the case of abuse, just because there is no evidence doesn't always mean it didn't happen.

I also do think it's important to keep saying that children don't necessarily need their biological fathers as a way of counterbalancing the propaganda which effectively tells women that they must 'work at' relationships with abusive or unsatisfactory men because it's 'better for the children' when this is often thoroughly untrue.

Just for reasons of balance. We hear about how terrible social services are, how evil these professionals are, how they all want to snatch children and persecute parents. I had a period of very bad health earlier this year. Social services were involved and investigated. I did everything they asked me to. I found them supportive and keen to keep my family together. The case was closed. My experience doesn't tally with a lot of what was posted on here at all.

In terms of education about abusive relationships - this is good from Louise Tickle

www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2015/jun/15/coercive-control-domestic-abuse-crime-dart-tool-evidence?CMP=share_btn_tw

Upon returning home, I have just fed a selection of recent posts through my new 'reverse the genders and see the sexism when reversed translator app' and the results are in:

Mothers are not needed if they are abusive. (RM is no longer a requirement in her child's life then)

If another adult is ‘taking on’ the role of parent children grow up happy and healthy when another adult takes on the parental role. (I have read numerous posts on here and elsewhere by women that have been abused by their mother’s boyfriend or step father and the mother is so desperate for a relationship they are ignored and disbelieved often whilst the mother has done her very best to eradicate the father from the child’s life as it doesn't fit with her perception of her new ‘family’.

Abuse of a parent is continuing via fucking around with legal action for increased contact. (Well RM is fucked then)

Where there has been abuse, contact should be supervised for a good long time and any dubious behaviour that occurs during supervised contact should mean that unsupervised contact is a long time coming. (RM and contact blocking alienating mothers are in for a long ride then)

Educating young people would be good if there was an emphasis on the mother’s responsibilities ie not to try and destroy the relationship between a child and a loving father upon separation for their own selfish, controlling and entitled reasons.

It could be considered abusive to the child and mother to continue to pursue contact due to RM’s extreme reaction and the potential damage that could do to the child. (Even though the only person in this scenario is the mother, as is the case in many other contact applications)

When there is a dispute between parents that goes to court and there are allegations of abuse (which in the majority of cases will be unfounded and made by the mother) there needs to be a burden of proof to prevent children losing vital relationships with loving fathers on the selfish whims of a mother. (Happens more frequently than many would clearly like to believe)

Because in the family courts, if there is no evidence means there is a strong chance it didn't happen.

I also think it’s important to keep saying that children don’t necessarily need their biological mothers as a way of counterbalancing the propaganda which effectively tells fathers that they must go through the emotional and financial pain, years of needless litigation whilst being demeaned as a parent in order appease an abusive or unsatisfactory woman because it’s better for the children when this is often untrue.

I also fed today's judgement through and it came back with no results found.