You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Interesting isn't the way how the media encodes these stories reveals in built gender biases.
If this had been a father and his son, the story would almost certainly have been encoded with words like 'kidnapped' or 'abducted' (do a google search and you will quickly find many references to this).
But because it's the mother, not only are the words used far less judgemental (missing suggests the possibility that some misfortune has befallen them rather than a contrived act on the mother’s part to subvert the courts), but the general way the media is treating the story is much more sympathetic. The Today programme for instance, was reporting how the mother’s aim of raising the profile of her case and having it reviewed had ‘been achieved’, the premise of that statement being that there is a justifiable need for this.
In similar cases involving the father, the underlying judgement is that the ‘kidnapping’ or ‘abduction’ simply underline the fact that the father is no fit to be the child’s guardian.
I agree with you 100% GT, I'd noticed that myself. I think the notion that a father could be the better parent for a child still sits strangely with some.
Having had a friend go through this (ex-wife runs off with kids after a lengthy legal battle ruled she was unfit), I know how skewed the legal system is against the man in family court cases. There is something big here that is not in the public domain.
That is what I was wondering - given the much perceived bias for the mother in these situations, you have to wonder what has been going on leading up to this.
Poor wee kid.
Completely agree about the media and social bias is on this. I seem to remember the police chief on Radio 4 strongly hinting that there were other factors in the court decision, but obviously she couldn't make them known.
Just as well the Daily Mail was able to sort it out eh? 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
presumably teh DM has paid for rights to the story, which probably had a factor.
Agree about the strange wording and apparent bias, though I suspect there's more to it. She may well have a history of emotional/mental instability, negative media coverage whipping up the public would be extremely damaging.
"A social worker reported that Ethan was not "emotionally safe" with his mother, and Ethan had been staying with his father four nights a week since February."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-33120424
Apparently some of the reasons for the decision were made public, chatting to someone yesterday.
I can imagine how awful it must be for either parent to lose a child like this. The default position has to be 50/50 shared custody until good reasons to change that can be shown
Agree with all of that it would defenitley be absconded and kidnapped if a father had done it
He would also not have been able to argue he did to for the child he would have been selfish
It seems the mothers accused father of inappropriate behaviour that no one else believes and that she "probes" the boy about it as she wont believe it did not happen
Whether she is mentally stable or not I do not know but even the strongest of people will lose it when they think they wont see their child again.
The today programme did use supportive language and her " i came back for him" he only missed my Mum and family - who incidentally is banged up for helping her so he wont get to see her- was BS
Hope the kid was actually unaware of what happened
Yes I'm sure there's two sides to the story
She was so 'desperate' that she had to phone the Sun, then sell her 'story' to the Mail !
Mumsnet has a thread with some interesting opinions on the situation.
And by "interesting" I mean "batshit insane".
One could be led to thinking that she has used the child to further her own agenda. Which is very sad if the case.
I have generally understood that courts will rarely assign custody to the father unless they have deep reservations about the mothers' emotional and mental wellbeing.
As has been said above, there's more to this than I'm currently aware of.
Mumsnet has a thread with some interesting opinions on the situation.
And by "interesting" I mean "batshit insane".
Ooh, linky? (Or at least a google term that'll work) I love loony tunes, me
According to an article I read this morning there is a document on the courts and judiciary system website which apparently gives all the background on the relationship between the mother and father and how it ended up in court. Much of the content hasn't been reported in the media but the sad thing is that the child will be able to access this information in the future.
[url= http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2400132-Rebecca-Minnock-on-the-run-with-child-after-court-battle?pg=1&order= ]Mumsnet[/url]
Looks like the Mods have been tidying up a bit, but there is still a fair selection of "the courts cannot have got this decision right. Only a mother knows what's best" waffle, intermingled with tales of personal woe and blurring of the lines between "anecdote" and "evidence".
Important thing is they've been found safe. Newspapers are vial and only print versions of a story they know will sell.
The courts made a decision on custody based on which parent could best care for the kid.
Mum lost, so took the kid anyway. As was previously said, I'm very sure if the roles were reversed and the dad was the one who took him the media would be on him tarring his character and offering rewards to catch the "evil" man.
EDIT Not sure how relevant, the dates suggest this might be post disappearance matters, not the original decision, although an outline of the process is in there.
but the sad thing is that the child will be able to access this information in the future.
I think the child is destined to grow up with plenty of evidence that his mum has some issues. I really hope dad is a little bit more level headed.
Sad.
true in many cases but the reporting restrictions were deliberately eased in this case to allow the media to get involved as that was the quickest way they could see to getting the child back. My guess is that the mother didn't actually think of going to the papers until a few journos had visited her familyNewspapers are vial and only print versions of a story they know will sell.
Quite smart really if a little unpleasant
It is interesting to read the judgement and note that mum did not turn up to any of the hearings to give evidence as to the allegations against dad. Having worked in local government practice as 'parasitic legal scum' I did a stint as a solicitor in children's social services and these sort of unfounded allegations against dad are very common.
Mumsnet in "batshit mental" shocker? Surely not?
This case seems to be ending in the best manner for the child. A few years ago a family friend in a similar situation killed herself and her kids. Fear and depression are a terrible combination.
This "story" has absolutely nothing to do with me.
The media have had "evident truths" about any number of subjects for years: Mothers are always devoted (unless they're benefit scum) children are angles that must be protected (unless they are hoody scum) Fathers are always hard working (unless they are benefit scum) Soldiers are always brave (unless they're brown and on the opposite side, then they're extremists)....
This particular story..? She made up shit that he (the father) was controlling, taking drugs and sexually abusing the child, when she realised that the courts didn't believe her (because it was all made up bolloxs) , she went on the run. No sympathy TBH, I hope she ends up in jail.
I noticed a similar slant on the younguns nipping off to Syria to join IS
If you are male that's it you is a nasty terrorist as soon as the plane ticket has been bought, if you are a woman though you are of course a victim that will never be seen again