In the blog about missing Ethan William dated 12 June, it was explained that the media are very restricted in what they can report in family cases.
The Ethan Williams case was extremely unusual as the Judge permitted the media to report on the case in order to try and locate him. At the time of publication of the previous blog, it appeared highly likely that Ethan would be brought back over the weekend. In fact, his mother Rebecca Minnock handed herself in to police in Oxford that evening and Ethan was reunited with his father.
A happy ending possibly? Well no, the courtroom drama is still ongoing.
There was much media comment both when Ethan was missing and after his return. Miss Minnock told her side of the story to various newspapers and received a great deal of support.
The broadsheet press contained much debate, mainly about the deficiencies of the family courts. An example being an article in The Telegraph which talked about the difference between the lawyer’s view that the Judge’s actions were right; and the other view that family courts erode mother’s rights. This does make a change from the family court being accused of taking the mother’s side and depriving fathers of seeing their children.
What is clear is that the media get so little insight into what happens in the family court that high profile cases such as Ethan’s do spark a great deal of discussion and controversy.
In an attempt to counteract media criticism Judge Wildblood explained in a judgment on 12 June – before Ethan’s return – that he was not going to prevent Ethan continuing to have a relationship with his mother. He said “it is the right of a parent to spend time with his or her children” and this is “an essential element of family life”. He went on to say the “court will strive to maintain relationships between this child and both of his parents, whatever the future may now hold and whatever the mother may have done”.
In a further judgment publicised on 15 June Judge Wildblood was scathing over Miss Minnock and her family’s manipulation of the press. He called it “absurd” for anyone to attempt to “play the press” and described the behaviour as “utterly irresponsible” from the “point of view of the welfare of the child”.
There are a total of 7 judgments available now on the court website: www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/roger-williams-v-rebecca-minnock-and-ethan-freeman-williams-2-judgments/
This week there are two more public hearings scheduled, a short directions hearing on Wednesday 24 June and a full hearing on Friday 26 June. At that hearing Miss Minnock could be jailed for contempt of court.
What then is to be learned from this whole sorry saga?
Any family lawyer worth their salt will tell you that court is not the answer and must only be seen as an absolute last resort. A child needs both parents and for the parents to work together as far as is possible.
Whilst the publicity has been extremely helpful in getting Ethan home, it cannot be in a child’s best interest for their parents’ dispute to be aired in public.
0 Comments