Gendered generalisations?

The case of Minnock has received a lot of press and social media coverage. As always, many of the tweets are simple ranting and jumping to conclusions. Twitter is full of idiots. In the interest of full disclosure I should say I have been told I am one of them!

So let’s look at what we actually know about this case (from the judgments):

THE FACTS

The parents separated Feb 2013. Ethan remained with Mum.

Proceedings were brought by Father in March 2013 when he applied for contact.

In August 2013 the magistrates ordered contact in the presence of Mother – she alleged Father took drugs which he denied. A report was ordered from an organisation called “Contact Matters”.

In October 2013 contact broke down.

In November 2013 an assessment of Father was ordered by an organisation called “Core Assets”.

In January 2014 Mother made further allegations against Father saying he was controlling in his behaviour and sexually inappropriate

In April 2014, at a fully contested hearing, the judge rejected all the allegations made by Mother and a contact order was made.

It appears matters did not progress and there was a further hearing in February 2015. Mother raised further allegations against Father, all of which were rejected (yet again). Furthermore he found as a fact that Mother had fabricated the allegations to frustrate contact.

This is critical : This was not simply a case where Mother didn’t persuade a court on the balance of probabilities that Father had done what she alleged. Findings were made that she had MADE THESE THINGS UP.

There was an order for Ethan to spend 4 nights a week with Father.

A section 37 report was ordered (i.e. the local authority were brought in such was the concern about Ethan).

A child psychiatrist was ordered to do a report.

Ethan himself was made a party i.e represented by a Guardian and his own lawyer.

So social services, a child’s guardian and an eminent psychiatrist were all brought in to inform the court decision.

The view of Social Services was that Ethan was not emotionally safe with Mother and they recommended he should live with Father and have supervised contact with Mother.

The psychiatrist considered Ethan had been questioned extensively by Mother and also recommended Ethan should live with Father and have supervised contact with Mother. The Guardian agreed.

A hearing was listed on 27 May 2015. On 25 May Mother took Ethan to hospital and made further allegations – of a sexual nature – against Father. Nothing medical substantiated that (though of itself that was not conclusive). Mother said Father should have only supervised contact.

Mother did not attend the hearing herself (she disappeared with Ethan). The hearing took 2 days and was the 3rd hearing in which Mother made allegations against Father. Mother was represented by counsel. Again a positive finding was made that Ethan had been exposed to emotional harm by Mother. She was also found to have breached court orders (in not attending court and not making Ethan available to live with Father 4 days a week).

Given the history it was hardly surprising that the court ordered Ethan should live with Father and have only supervised contact with Mother.

The case was then transferred to a Circuit Judge with High Court authorisation. Mother was ‘on the run’.

On 3 June a collection order was made – in essence anyone who is served with the order can be arrested if there is reasonable cause to believe they have disobeyed any part of it. Breach is a contempt punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

Mother’s family started a campaign to spread their view that Mother had been treated unjustly and that the allegations against Father were true, not fabricated, and that Ethan should stay with Mother.

Mr Butt, Mother’s partner, was found to have told a string of lies and to have taken Mother and Ethan away himself on 27 May.

He was sentenced to 28 days in prison for contempt and Gran was sentenced to 10 days.

SUMMARY

The Court made an order after FULL investigation and the order made was supported by 3 professional bodies – children’s services, child’s guardian and an eminent psychiatrist. MOTHER WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST FATHER. MOTHER WAS FOUND TO HAVE HAVE FRUSTRATED CONTACT. Mother did not appeal the order.

There is, frankly, no surprise that Ethan was ordered to go and live with his Father in the circumstances. What is surprising is some of the coverage this case has received.

THE PRESS

Custody has not existed for decades although virtually all the media use the term (it was residence until recently though contact and residence have both now been scrapped and are both, confusingly, referred to as child arrangement orders) but whatever the name it is clear that the hearing today (15 June) is not in fact a hearing to determine who the child will live with. That has already been decided upon. The Daily Mail has got it wrong:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123862/I-fear-ll-never-boy-Runaway-mother-s-agony-hands-son-3-dad.html

But it’s not just them of course. The Guardian went to a legal expert apparently. His pearls of wisdom? Here you go:

‘…….a legal expert, said Minnock now faced further restrictions on her access to Ethan as a result of her actions. “They can’t allow her to be alone with the child because there is a risk she will run away again,” Fletcher said. “It’s likely that she will be allowed only indirect contact with her son, with a social worker present in the room, for perhaps an hour at a time.”’

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/13/ethan-williams-rebecca-minnock-runaway-mother

Lest there be any confusion: indirect contact is sending letters to a child and sitting in a room with a child is direct contact which is sometimes supervised i.e. monitored by another.

But bad terminology is not really my issue with the reporting. The issue, as picked up by Fathers For Justice Twitter is the press sympathy for the Mother. What if a Dad had done this? They ask.

It is certainly interesting that the Mail states:

“It was ruled that she was obstructing access to her son after she made ‘false’ allegations about his father”.

Why the ‘’ round the word false? The finding of fact is she made false allegations.

I should perhaps point out that I have been accused (by several people on Twitter who posted on the Fathers For Justice timeline though not acting for F4J) of being part of the problem, dragging cases out for my own financial gain. The truth will not interest people who have made up their minds. As in every profession there will be the odd rogue lawyer who acts in the interests of themselves and not their client. But they are (very) few and far between. The vast majority of us settle cases if we can, in the interests of our clients, despite it actually costing us money (eg if I settle a case on day one I won’t get paid for the days that I was due to be in court on it. It happens all the time. All the time!) I go to court to get the best result I can for my client. Not myself. That’s a fact.

But back to the point. Why the sympathy for Mother? There is a perception that the system is biased – anti dads. Now I am not going to get into that here. But perceptions are important whether they are true or not. And the blog by Matt O’Connor is interesting.

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/the-deification-of-rebecca-minnock-by-matt-oconnor/

I don’t know his source but he states the police said this: “This will be a matter for the family courts now…she is a good mother who had her child’s best interests at heart.” Did they say this? Is she a good mother? I am not saying she is or she isn’t but I don’t think the police should be either! I do not agree with everything he says but he makes his points well. Why has she got so much media support despite having frankly damning findings made against her?

Matt says this :

“If all this publicity leads to no punitive consequences for Rebecca Minnock, it will make a mockery of our idea of justice and give a licence to mothers who want to deny children access to their dads, with impunity”

Would it? No it wouldn’t in fact. BUT it could certainly be perceived that way. And as I have already said, perceptions are important.

The question is, if we swap Mother and Father, what would the coverage be? Would a father who had gone on the run with his child after denying the mother contact and making false allegations against her be supported? I, personally, doubt it.

The National Family Mediation tweeted on this case

http://t.co/jFyyZxTZdF “Courts considering the case of Rebecca Minnock should halt legal proceedings surrounding the future of her son so mediation can be undertaken to help shape a brighter future for the three year-old, says a leading family charity.”

Really? Mediation after false allegations after false allegations and a court order for a change of living arrangements and supervised contact only with Mother who then went on the run? Call me a cynic but I personally can’t see that happening or indeed helping.

Cases are not decided by the “toss of a coin” as one person on Twitter said to me (!) but based on what is judged to be the best interests of the child. And here is why 50% of people (at least) will think the system is badly flawed : if parents could agree what was in the best interests of the child they wouldn’t be in court! The judge makes that decision. Chances are at least one of the parents won’t agree with that decision. It doesn’t make the decision wrong.

Is the family justice system perfect? No system is. There are arguments (which will be decided by parliament not lawyers) that we should start with a presumption of shared care. I make no comment on that. I have represented many fathers who now have their children living with them after a long battle against a mother who denied them contact. In my view the biggest problem is delay. There are often umpteen hearings and months and years can pass before a father (typically it is a father though not always) is eventually exonerated of any wrong doing, during which time he often hasn’t seen his child.

The apparent facts of this case do not paint Mother in a good light. Yet there is much support for her. Why? The judge today said she had “manipulated” the press. But it seems they knew the court found facts as well as me (the judgments are easily accessible on line). So why were they so sympathetic to her? Because she is the mother? I cannot say…….but it certainly seems that way.

Leisha Bond