When a Mother Abducted Her Own Child

The recent abduction by Rebecca Minnock of her son Ethan, when ordered to return him to his father, made national headlines with online petitions and criticism levelled at the judicial process. The resultant lifting of reporting restrictions allowed a rare glimpse into the workings of the family court.

Ethan’s parents separated in February 2013 and he initially lived with his mother as primary carer. In March his father applied for a contact order. In considering the application, the Children Act requires the court to take Ethan’s welfare as the foremost consideration.

At two subsequent hearings, Rebecca alleged that Ethan’s father took drugs, was controlling in his behaviour and behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner. In April 2014 the court rejected all of the allegations as untrue and fabricated by the mother to frustrate contact with Ethan. She made further allegations in February 2015 which were again rejected by the court.

In preparation for a hearing on 27 May 2015, the court consulted a child psychologist, a local authority social worker and, exceptionally, appointed a guardian to represent Ethan’s interests. The social worker and psychologist observed Ethan with his parents and each formed the opinion that Ethan was not emotionally safe with his mother. On that basis each concluded that Ethan’s interests would be best served living with his father and spending time with his mother on a supervised basis.

Rebecca did not attend the 27 May hearing. In her absence the court found that she had not only exposed Ethan to emotional harm but also failed to respect an earlier court order for Ethan to live with his father four days per week. On that basis the court ordered Ethan to live primarily with his father.

When Rebecca learned of the judgment she left her home with Ethan and went into hiding, deliberately breaching the court’s order. A number of family members were arrested and ordered to deliver Ethan to the police or provide the court with information they had on his whereabouts.

HHJ Wildbood QC’s later judgment of 12 June condemned Rebecca’s actions but also sought to reassure her that the court would enable Ethan to have an effective relationship with both parents. After its release, Rebecca came out of hiding and handed Ethan in.

After Ethan’s father dropped proceedings upon his safe return, HHJ Wildbood QC said that Miss Minnock “had no excuse for what she did” and he would have jailed her for at least 28 days. He said: “Her actions were manifestly contrary to the welfare of her child and were a product of her own self focus. They had nothing to do with what was best for this child. Any idea that this sort of action will go unnoticed by the court is wrong. Parents who flout court orders are the scourge of the system and it is only the mercy of the father that spares this mother.”

This matter demonstrates the courts’ approach to protecting the best interests of children following a separation. Enabling children to maintain a relationship with both parents is part of the court’s function. Parents should bear this in mind and not seek to undermine their child’s relationship with their former partner, or denigrate the former partner to the child. This simply ends up damaging the child.