This case has been in the news this week. What little we know from the public domain is that a mother was involved in court proceedings and the Court ordered that the child go to live with father, and that mother instead took the child and went on the run with him. She has contacted the Sun, who ran a story and now the Daily Mail.
I’m not going to comment much on the story, because it is still a live issue before the Courts, but given the extent of feeling about the case, I think it is helpful for people to see what the Court judgments say on the case.
There are 3 judgments, on the 8th June, 9th June and 11th June. You can find them all at that link.
The 8th June judgment is probably the most helpful in terms of understanding the background of the dispute between mother and father and why the Court decided that a change of home from mother to father was warranted. (Bear in mind though that all three of these judgments are about efforts to find the child, and aren’t the judgment that sets out the full facts in the private law case deciding where the child should live and making conclusions about the allegations in the case. That isn’t yet published. It would be very helpful to understand things, but I can understand that whilst the child is missing why it might be thought that it should not yet be published)
I am sure that people will have very strong views and that those views may well be polarised. Let’s all hope though that the child is okay. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, this must be a very difficult and worrying time for all of the real people involved.
It can never,never be right to deprive a non criminal sane parent of face to face unsupervised contact with their child. No doubt this mother who had never neglected or physically hurt her child,learning that she was to be deprived of unsupervised contact did the only thing she could.She did a runner !
The judges and Ministers make great play of promoting equal parenting.Well they should practice what they preach and give equal rights to this mother and lift any gagging orders that will surely be put on soon!
Can’t blame the mum for running.Is this another case of the courts turning hostile on the mum, for saying something concerning protecting herself, or her child, we will never know the truth,as these courts are closed for a reason .
Good luck, to mum, an son.
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
The courts are solely concerned with the welfare of the child, and to that end, expect him to have a relationship and access to both his parents. The mother defied the court by making false allegations against the father (twice) to deny the child access to his father. She brought everything on herself by her selfish actions to stop her stop seeing his father.
To stop him seeing his father.
We don’t actually know if the allegations are false. We only know that other human beings who were not present in the home say they are false. Which is not the same thing. She was apparently represented in the private law proceedings, we know she is not well off as she is in receipt of housing benefit therefore there must be evidence of domestic violence in order for her to have legal aid. The neighbours of the father have also said that she should have the child living with her. Why would they say that unless they were aware of some problem.
Real person,well said.As for these courts deciding about what constitutes domestic violence an what does not count,someone wants to be on the receiving end of this ,an see how it feels to be battered twice,once by your soon to B X ,an next by some dumb with expert, or social worker who’s just not even had a relationship, or experienced any real domestic abuse.
The general public don’t need swaying on this case,they have seen another good mother deprived of a lovely happy sociable child.
The mother will be lucky if she can find sad photos of the the child posted on FB on Christmas Day,left open to public view.My advice is dont even go contact, don’t look on FB ,just leave the sad t…TS to it .
What’s the point,you can kiss goodbye to a lovely boy,an in its place is a confused ,angry, broken little human being in its place.
“ALL IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST!”
Am tempted to update the EW’s with FB profiles an sad photos of a child that was never as unhappy in all his life as he appears now.
But why bother ?
I guess , it would bring the EW sheer delight,an who knows,you lot probably get off on this kind of thing,don’t you
That mother ran because the judge had decded to deprive her of contact unless supervised.
If the judge had left the arrangement of 4 nights with father and three nights with mother she would never have done that.
But she was doing her best to frustrate that arrangement with the allegations of abuse which were never substantiated in any way. That is what caused the court to change to supervised contact. In fact, if she had simply allowed her child to have a relationship with his father from the outset this would never have got to court in the first place.
Expand on how yo would need to substantiate abuse allegations then.
Give an example how you would prove it in a closed court?
Bearing in mind ,none of these experts CV’s can be substantiated either can they?
Experience has taught us this, the longer or bigger the CV, the more likely it is to be forged !
Forced adoption,Many thanks for clarifying this fact.As we all knowfrom personal experience,supervised contact means that (in my case )the contact was first delayed for 3 months no contact at all.To maybe 1 hour a month if you are lucky.
It’s kinder to walk away,than work with these professionals as they are solely responsible for the emotional harm.
The judge cares nothing on Monday when he decides this case,just watch.
I actually do think that Judge Wildblood does give a damn. He appears to be a considerate judge, I wish I had had him. However the “system” seems to say that if a woman refuses to withdraw allegations she MUST be mentally ill and therefore emotionally harming the child. The “system” does has not actually worked out that a parent that abuses their partner either sexually, emotionally or physically is highly unlikely to be a good enough parent as their emotional age is going to be years behind their actual age , probably about 7 years old at best. The “system” still lets these immature individuals parent when they when it is actually inappropriate to leave a small child in charge of another one. Their immaturity does not let them prioritise the child’s or anyone else for that matter needs over their own.
The Establishment ( mainly male) still does not understand how difficult it is for a woman, yes it’s normally a woman who suffers DV to admit to being abused, nor that she is in all probability suffering from PTSD rather than some elaborate psychiatric illness.
Real person,thank you .Why is it,when DV is a classless subject,that these so called experts get it wrong?
THe use of Scots Schedule is also not used as I should be to assess DV.
Also the way SW’s ask o about your experience in a room in. Intact centre when you are highly stressed is not an appropriate place, or time to discuss traumatic events.
Told the Psychologist, I am not discussin this, an am not going there in an afternoon,as well as answering 500 questions for an MMP1 test,an another thing, logic would tell any normal person this, When you’ve just had your child diagnosed with T cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia,why would you want to be side tracked to go see a shrink an talk about anything that has no relevance on your being fit to be a parent.I can quote a page number of a report ,an it’s her words, the EW, not mine am quoting,”before her son got cancer ,he would never have been made a referral to SS as he parenting was good enough.
As for DV, police who called out, an my door was kicked in.
this was prior to my sone being born.The warns signs all there. then later on a CRB check done on the father.Been dome previously for GHB,an ABH an where is the evidence he went to behavioural therapy for his,an how come criminal courts heard other victims, an family courts ,dismissed my evidence ?
There is no law to stop you ,blanking a judge in family court an walking out while they are talking.There is no law to make his mother see the father, or put up with his behaviour, however the children have to suffer.Not good at all,an as for judgements ,not worth wiping your backside on .
Pingback: The Minnock judgments are up | Children In Law ...
Why shouldn’t Ethan have a relationship with his father as well as his mother? She has apparently decided she doesn’t want him to have any contact from the start and so has made accusations with no proof at all then chosen not to engage with the court process. Hrdly helpful to herself or her son. There has been no evidence at all of any wrongdoing or violence of any kind from the the father and he has at least had enough consideration for his son not to engage in a public slanging match through the press. A lot of professionals have seen the full facts – we shouldn’t make judgements based on half a story coloured by our own experiences and prejudices.
I’ve heard all about this. I am glad to hear that the child is the priority in all this.
Nobody is saying the father can not have a relationship with his son.
1) People have lost confidence in the system of assessing parents
2) For example,there are far to many people sharing reports, an CRB checks on abusive parents who are winning custody.