The case of Rebecca Minnock and her 3 year old son Ethan has been all over the news media this week. Miss Minnock disappeared with Ethan just before a hearing in the Family Court on 27th May 2015.
At that hearing a Judge made an order that Ethan lives with his father, Roger Williams, and he should only spend time supervised with his mother. The order was made after over two years of litigation. The proceedings were commenced in March 2013, a month after the parents separated. The litigation became extremely acrimonious; a Local Authority (social services) report was prepared and a psychiatrist was appointed. Ethan had his own representation via a Children’s Guardian as the court considered that this was necessary to promote his welfare.
The Judge at the hearing on 27th May found that Ethan had been subjected to emotional harm by his mother. She had made false allegations against the father and prevented him from seeing Ethan in breach of two court orders.
A court order changing a child’s primary carer is one of the options available to judges and it can be an effective tool in cases where the parent with care deliberately prevents the other parent spending time with a child.
From a family lawyers perspective the facts of this case are not that unusual. Whilst this situation cannot be described as run of the mill, all experienced family lawyers will have come across similar cases.
It is well known that family proceedings are private in order to protect the identity and the welfare of children. Family courts have been criticised in the past for being too secretive and over the past few years, attempts have been made to make the family courts more open. However, it is highly unusual for the identity of the parties and the child to be published.
In Ethan’s case, an order lifting media restrictions was made so that that the press and, therefore the public, may help in the search for him. The information which was published actually relates to proceedings for contempt of court.
When Ethan disappeared, the case was transferred to a High Court Judge, Stephen Wildblood QC, for enforcement purposes. A “Collection Order” was made. This allowed a Court Officer called a “Tipstaff” to arrest anyone who refused to provide information about Ethan and his mother’s whereabouts. The Collection Order also made clear that anyone found to be in breach would be in contempt of court punishable by imprisonment or fine.
Certain members of Miss Minnock’s family were arrested and brought before Judge Wildblood. Whilst he did not send them to prison for contempt, he said he was “deeply suspicious” they had not provided all information they could to secure Ethan’s return. Miss Minnock’s brother did not help himself by saying on Facebook: “she’s not missing. I know where they both are”.
Campaigns and petitions on social media on behalf of both parents did not impress the Judge. It is well known that the judiciary do not like any information about children who are the subject of court proceedings being put on social media.
The full transcript was published on the Court website on 10th June 2015
Miss Minnock told The Sun newspaper on the same day that she and Ethan were “safe and well” but that she “feels trapped” and she knows she is going to be in a “huge, huge amount of trouble”.
On Thursday 11th June Judge Wildblood told the media that the court’s job was to ensure both parents were able to “maintain an effective relationship” with the child.
At the time of writing, Ethan and Miss Minnock have still not been located and the search continues.
As an aside, it is noticeable that the news media use (very) outdated the terminology. There is much talk about the case being a “custody battle”. The legal term referring to child “custody” became obsolete following the introduction of “Residence” and “Contact” orders in the Children Act 1989. These terms were replaced in April 2014 with “Child Arrangements Orders”. The whole ethos of the changes in terminology is to get away from the idea of custody which denotes ownership of a child.
0 Comments