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?

He is their father. If he's a particularly vile and unpleasant human being the obviously the best thing for your friend to have done is to have not had kids with him in the first place.

The only reason for a child to be separated from a parent is if that parent is a direct danger to them. It's perfectly possible that he is a vile and unpleasant man, but no particular danger to his own kids.

This is the reason we have supervised contact.

How is he even getting legal aid? Or is he privately paying from his prison cell?

Your friend doesn't have to spend thousands. There are lots of good McKenzie friends out there who will help her cheaply. Or she can get a direct access barrister.

I think we need to get out of this cycle of though - "all men are bad" and all women are good". That's plainly not the case. Even on MN - look at all the threads on nightmare/abusive parents, MIL's, SIL's etc.

From the facts, its clear this woman has tried making up stories about the father to stop him getting regular contact.

Fathers should always be percieved as the least important people in the case of a custody disput unless there is a lot of well-corroborated evidence that the mother is neglectful or abusive

have I read your post right, and that you are presenting this comment as a "feminist" point of view?

For father's to be perceived as 'least important' part of process then I am afraid we are going to have to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights as that would be contrary to decades of very clear and settled law.

You simply have to accept that the law states with absolute clarity - a child deserves a relationship with both the humans who created him/her, unless either of those humans has harmed or poses a risk of harm to the child.

spero - I know you work in this area - I would honestly love to pm you the details of this case, but I can't. It's not my story, and it's ongoing at the moment. But I really wouldn't have believed that this sort of thing could happen.

In all honesty, I think they'll find for the mother (my friend) - but the legal process has been cruel to her.

Undoubtedly - you are talking crap. This man is a risk to women and children, his children don't want to see him because he is a convicted sex offender - the very type schools warn young children about in 'online safety' talks.

You maybe happy to hand your children over to a convicted paedophile and rapist - good luck to you. Most mothers would not be happy with this.

No one is asking her to hand over her children.

There are contact centres.

If he was a genuine danger, then I would hope contact would be cut or limited. My examples were clearly if he wasn't a danger to his own kids.

Sabrina - I am genuinely worried that my own experiences seen so out of whack with the experiences of so many on these threads, and I have been contributing for many years now.

Fwiw - as far as I am concerned, courts have been crystal clear since the seminal case of Re L in 2000, which relied heavily on the reports of Drs Sturge and Glaser, that violence was a failure of parenting and the violent parent had to understand this, cease being violent and make reparation (if possible).

I still wonder whether what is going on is that of course we don't conduct our lives with one eye on a future court case, we don't gather evidence of each incident of abuse and shame and fear keep a lot of women from reporting.

So all I can say is if you are with a violent man, get photographs, document your complaints, complain as soon as you can.

there is really very little for e.g. a court can do with an allegation of rape which is years old and the relationship has been on going in the meantime and there is no other evidence but the assertion of the alleged victim.

this doesn't mean the courts are a bastion of misogynistic women haters - it means that decisions can only be made on the evidence. And in this particular case the judge decided there was more than enough evidence to make serious findings against this mother's competence as a parent. If she thought he was wrong, she should have appealed, not run. She has just made a crap situation 100s of times worse, for everyone but especially her son.

Undoubtedly - He is a danger to all children - he is a convicted paedophile and rapist.

But it hasn't stopped him pursuing his "father's rights" at length through the family courts, from his prison cell - further abusing their mother (also his victim).

He is a rapist and a paedophile - but still a father. That's the problem. You can't just pretend he doesn't exist. The court has to deal with his application. He has that right. I am still interested to know how he is funding all of this. He can't possibly be getting legal aid with those kind of convictions and if the mother is his victim.

If your friend is spending £1,000s, there might be some information on here that would help her www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/legal-advice/

I think a lot of women need to realise that a lying sack of shit husband doesn't necessarily = crap dad

And sometimes even crap dad doesn't necessarily = shouldn't see his kids.

SGB,

"It is far more likely that allegations a man is abusive are true than that they are untrue"

This statement is completely unfounded and untrue.

"Fathers should always be percieved as the least important people in the case of a custody disput unless there is a lot of well-corroborated evidence that the mother is neglectful or abusive"

This statement could be considered as one definition of sexism.

He's not getting legal aid. I can't really say more, I don't want this recognisable.

All very well saying report. I still want to know hoe ex managed to get the Police to cover up and not disclose to my solicitor/Cafcass/ss and me. It took such a long time and complaints to get the heavily redacted documents from the police. I looked like a liar in court because of that police cover up. How many others does it happen to?

For me, this is the key part of the judgment against this mother:
Ethan has now been missing for 11 days. The solution to any grievance that the mother and her family might feel does not lie in the mother going into hiding. The court made orders following full investigations and the orders that the Judge made were supported by three strong professional bodies – the Local Authority children’s services, the child’s guardian and the eminent psychiatrist, Dr Berelowitz. If the mother wished to oppose the father’s application on 27th May or to substantiate her allegations she should have attended court; there is no doubt that she knew of the court hearing. Further, if the mother had any valid basis for challenging the orders of the District Judge, she could have sought permission to appeal. She did not do so.

SGB what a load of bollocks you have written....

It's not always clear that you are being abused , it takes time for them to fully expose who they are and for you to recognise it.

spero In the discussions I have had with the few people I know who have sought to inhibit contact between their DCs and their other parent, the issue isn't a "lack of evidence" it is the interpretation of that evidence.

I have read posts here on MN from posters who are convinced that a man who has an affair has abused his DCs and that the DCs should be protected from him. That drug/alcohol use is evidence of an inability to parent. Whereas, when parents are together, these behaviours do not warrant removing a DC from their home.

My understanding is that the risk assessment (for want of a better term) carried out when it comes to contact between a DC and their NR parent is the same as the risk assessment carried out when a LA applies to remove a child from a parents care, is that right?

I think there is a misunderstanding that when one parent can provide higher-quality parenting than the other, then that parent is favoured, whereas I believe the reality is that parents are not "compared" to each other in that way, and that a DCs relationship with a "good enough" parent is considered to be valuable.

Sabrinna and King Tut - I am sorry, I know how frustrating it is to try to argue your case when so much of it can't or isn't known.

I know that corruption exists and can occur in every state agency. But I have never had a case where the police tried to cover up records of abuse, so I hope that means it is not commonplace.

My understanding is that the risk assessment (for want of a better term) carried out when it comes to contact between a DC and their NR parent is the same as the risk assessment carried out when a LA applies to remove a child from a parents care, is that right?

I don' t think that can be right as the legal tests are so different. Removal of a child to state care is on the basis of 'significant harm' or serious risk of same.

Removing a child from the care or one parent to care of another is a welfare decision - which parent is better able to meet that child's needs? The courts would like most cases to be more or less shared care to reflect the equal importance of mothers and fathers.

A key issue which may lead to one parent being preferred over the other is how willing or able that parent is to promote the child's relationship with the other parent.

The problem is that, as in this case, the only well-corroborated evidence that the mother is neglectful or abusive is her continued implacable hostility and false allegations.

Unfortunately, by the time this pattern becomes clear the damage to the child and the relationship with the father is already done.

I believe it is also true that the belief held by some people that are of the view that if a mother claims to be abused then it must be true, only encourages false allegations in the family court by those who that way inclined.

This only makes it more difficult for the genuine victims. The cutting of legal aid is also terrible for genuine victims, but in my own case it has helped as my ex is no longer able to abuse public funding and helps prevent further false allegations.

No system is infallible and there will always be genuine victims that suffer of both genders but I believe this to be the exception rather than the norm within family law.

I know of another case with the same force. I want to know why and how this happened. It was one of many mistakes made.

My own experiences just make me suspicious now along with all these serious case reviews coming to same conclusions, crap information sharing and logging. It sounds like a chronic problem in all agencies.

Peruvian, I very much agree with your second paragraph - once the bitterness of separation kicks in, behaviour that didn't merit a comment when the parents were together, can become the focus of all kinds of allegations.

I have had cases where fathers were criticised for jumping in puddles etc as child would get wet and cold. There is a risk that everything gets seen through a lens of suspicion once you no longer feel kindly towards a person.

Yes Peruvian that was the point I was trying to get across too.

He doesn't need to be a good parent. He just needs to not be a danger to his kids.

I can totally relate to the moment when you hand a small, vulnerable child over to someone you don't trust, hoping beyond hope that the child will be returned to you intact 8 hours later.

But the fact is there needs to be very strong evidence indeed that this fear is real and founded on actual evidence for that contact to be limited.

Being a "Disney dad" isn't enough, being a dad who doesn't go to the park isn't enough, being a dad who feeds the kids crisps all weekend, isn't enough to cut contact.