Rebecca Minnock Case Thread 2

[sonnyson12]

Further judgement released:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ethan-williams-private.pdf

Previous judgements:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/roger-williams-v-rebecca-minnock-and-ethan-freeman-williams-2-judgments/

Apologies, previous mumsnet thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2400132-Rebecca-Minnock-on-the-run-with-child-after-court-battle

I'm a little surprised the onus has been put on the father and the guardian to decide whether there should be contempt proceedings. I would have thought that it is up to the court to decide whether to send a message that you don't disobey court orders.

They won't be 'deciding' they will be giving their views to assist the judge - which Is quite right as this will be a fantastically important judgment.

I have been to told the hearing will be 26 June, in open court.

I would be very interested to discuss this judgment.

Very much so. He is having the sense to demonstrate that he puts his son's welfare first, though it must be difficult when RM is hurling around abuse accusations.

I would also be interested to know how many of those who were promoting the 'women as most nurturing parent' line have engaged with the very sad thread in AIBU about the most tactless thing anyone has ever said to you.

I haven't read it all but from what I have read it seems a pretty even split between mothers and fathers for heartless cruelty towards their children.

Spero,

I get the impression from several years of reading threads on mumsnet that it's often a case of;

if a female is behaving badly in any way towards another female (insert Mother, MIL, any other female relation, friend, work colleague etc) then there is no problem in stating how horrible the behaviour of said female is.

But if the dispute is between a female and a male and especially when children are involved (a mother v father, ex husband scenario) there is an automatic siding with the female and often derision aimed at the male.

Obviously posts can only be taken at face value but from my own experience of being on the receiving end of several years of severe controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour, which thanks to my ex wife, is all evidenced in court orders, supported by several years of my own medical records and letters of support from a psychotherapist, that it can be shown.

I don't necessarily disbelieve but often question when I see the standard 'ex is EA and controlling' line so casually included at the start of a post.

It instantly places the poster in a position of victim ahead of whatever scenario follows it.

I fell for it in real life, when I met my now ex wife, she presented many of those around her as controlling, abusive, mean or bullying.

Then, when I was no longer of use to her and was to be disposed of, you've guessed it, I was branded abusive and controlling. And some people believed her. After all, she is a MOTHER, I must have done 'something'.

Thankfully, as in this case, the court saw right through her and each time she didn't get her own way and I gained court orders for our child and myself, then cue anger from my ex wife and some newly fresh unfounded allegations.

Taking a look at the Facebook support page for RM (I can't bear to for long, it is jaw dropping ridiculousness that'll give any rational person that has read the judgements a severe case of WTF fatigue) just shows how many people are prepared to fall for the poor victim mother pretence.

Her supporters are so deluded and don't realise that they are actually harming her case, showing the world how widespread these attitudes towards fathers are and at the same time encouraging RM's behaviour.

Men are not supposed to have rights, they can't be victims and cannot possibly face discrimination. If you believe that you must be a woman hating 'F4J MRA' (with a small penis).

And some these women will retort that they can't possibly be anti male as they have a husband that is wonderful.

Bit like someone that says 'I cannot possibly be racist as I have a black friends'.

I think, sadly, there is a lot of truth in that.

Those who wear the mantle of victim hood when it suits them, really stuff it up for the genuine victims of abuse because they bring about a sense of fatigue and irritation which soon descends upon these types of allegations in general.

O dear. Just paid a visit to theFacebook group. They are demanding a retrial, will protest outside the court and have got John Hemming involved.

She had better take a toothbrush to the committal hearing, that's all I'm saying.

I've just checked the Facebook group too, are they insane? I'm amazed that anybody can be as stupid as the group members.

The posts on the facebook group are excruciating.

The RM facebook group is behaving in exactly the way (when used to deride fathers) the widely held perception of F4J is accused of on here.

Oh, the irony!

Of course no decent loving parent or person wants the child to go through any of this (and the courts are publicly taking action to put a stop to it) but it goes without saying that the child wouldn't have to go through any of this if it wasn't for his mother's behaviour BUT,

I am so glad this is happening in public, especially at a time when my own situation has now been resolved.

I think this needed to happen.

Disclaimer

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of F4J, an MRA or a woman hater. (best leave the question of the size of my manhood out of it).

Wayne Rooney,

That's the thing though, through my own experience and research over the past years, I'm not amazed by it at all.

The attitudes being expressed on the Facebook page are far more widespread than many want to believe. I don't think they can be dismissed as just a few 'nutters' who are bit extreme in their beliefs.

On what possible grounds can they justify a retrial? The mere fact that the silly woman chose to go on the run and sell her story to the papers is hardly a valid reason. If she thinks the decision was wrong she can use the same legal processes as everyone else by applying for leave to appeal.

and have got John Hemming involved. Well Spero he does have a fair bit of time on his hands now - I guess we can look forward to him popping up waaaaaaay more often. Hurrah

Tbh I think emotional abuse is rife. There are so many things that can be considered abusive that have just been socially accepted (or at least "turn a blind eye") for many years and it's only now that people are pushing back on it. I think women (and men) who deliberately, mindfully place themselves as the victim are few and far between. I think for the majority it's an unconscious, automatic thing, simply repeating the patterns of previous generations in their families. The victim status and the behaviours that often accompany it can also be abusive, and so the cycle continues.

The only way out of the drama is to take responsibility for ourselves.

I am really interested to see what happens next in the Minnock case. I will be shocked and disappointed if she doesn't serve jail time. She purposely manipulated the media with a hope of the case being reviewed. That is absolutely not in the best interests of the children. HHJ Wildblood seems to have a firm but fair handle on it and I hope he makes the right choice that sends a clear message to other women doing the sort of thing that Minnock has.

But if the dispute is between a female and a male and especially when children are involved (a mother v father, ex husband scenario) there is an automatic siding with the female and often derision aimed at the male.

I don't think that's necessarily true of MN. I certainly haven't done any sort of survey, but I've seen quite a few threads where a woman acting unreasonably towards her male partner is very robustly told that, and indeed where she is seeking to use the children as a weapon in an ongoing argument she has been told that they are entitled to see their father and their father's family.

John Hemming? I thought he was a fully fledged F4J?

I think there's a mix icimoi. Some of the things on the Lone Parents board can be pretty dodgy but there are a good few voices of reason around too.

I read the Father will be asked his opinion on what should happen to her. I don't think this is quite fair somehow. On either of them. If I was making the decision she'd certainly get sent to prison.

I don;t think so Bellemere I think he's just pro publicity for John Hemmings.

I was responding to Spero, about the people that will automatically assume a mother is innocent or if they do accept the behaviour is bad, will then try and make it out to be an isolated incident by quoting statistics that claim men are far more likely to be abusive in all areas of life.

Of course there are people on here that will call bad behaviour for what it is regardless of the gender.

But the same attitudes will often always re appear, even if in the minority.

Bellemere, I agree, many of the people that play victim, and there are many in cases that reach the family courts, don't always consciously do so and may possibly have been 'conditioned' to behave in that way, whether it is through their own upbringing or their experience with society generally.

It's as though they actually believe there own lies, and often by the time they are in front of professionals, they have to believe their own story.

The tangled web they weave when at first they practice to deceive.

JH is against The Evil Secret Family Courts in all their demonic guises, so any enemy of the family courts is his friend.

And just when you thought the FB group couldn't get any more differently sane, they want to enlist Katie Hopkins!

Are we actually in some Charlie Brooker dystopian satire? Surely this can't be real?

Gosh that group is just bizarre. Discrediting PAS? PAS is NOT recognised in the UK courts. How can Rebecca have manipulated the press when there was a gagging order? Bizarre, just bizarre...