Shortly before Christmas reports began to emerge of a young mother who had disappeared with her little boy, and of the High Court Judge who gave permission for the family to be publicly named and photos shown in order to help locate them. At the time we weren’t sure quite what to make of it, but there is now a little more information publicly available. What follows is far from the complete picture.
However, here’s what we know.
Olly Sheridan is 3. His father is Patrick Sheridan. His mother is Ellie Yarrow-Sanders. Olly’s parents have been involved in a dispute about where Olly should live, and in the summer of 2018 Ellie took Olly and ran away with him. She has not been seen since. In December, a high court Judge made Olly a ward of court and lifted the usual prohibition on publishing the name or photo of a child who is the subject of a court case, in order to try and locate him. Reports say that Olly’s mum has not used her bank cards since she fled.
There is no published judgment, either of the hearing on 19 December 2018 when the judge gave permission for the press to report, or of any prior hearing (or at any rate there is no published judgment that we can identify as being connected).
Information from the mother (in the form of a letter written to her family and the police explaining why she has abducted Olly) suggests that Mr Sheridan was abusive during the course of their relationship (on her account she seems to describe controlling behaviour, psychologically and sexually demanding behaviour but not physical violence), and that he was manipulating the court process in order to take Olly away from her. She also reports that Olly had been reluctant to go to contact and said his dad hit him. What we don’t know is whether any or all of those allegations are true – or whether the Family Court has yet heard any evidence and decided if it accepts those allegations. In fact, we don’t actually know whether or not Mr Sheridan would accept any of those allegations or if they have been the subject of any formal complaint either to the police or the Family Court. We do know from press reports that when she ran away the mother was about to give evidence at a ‘critical’ Family Court hearing. It is possible that this hearing was to be a ‘fact finding hearing’ where the Family Court was going to listen to what each parent had to say about the abuse allegations. That would be a very important hearing, which would set the trajectory for subsequent decisions about Olly – it is possible that Ellie was advised or worried that the Family Court wouldn’t believe her so decided to take matters into her own hands. Alternatively, it is possible the court had already decided the allegations (perhaps not accepting all of them), and was about to hold a further hearing to decide what to do next in light of those findings. If Olly’s mum’s allegations had been found to have been fabricated (rather than just not proved), that might indeed have been a ‘critical’ hearing, because the court would probably having been beginning to consider how to protect Olly from false allegations and emotional abuse.
We know from the mother’s letter that she was worried about accusations of emotional abuse and in particular about a (Cafcass) guardian being appointed for Olly, which she seemed to connect with Olly being removed into foster care – but it is not at all clear from the letter whether this was really on the horizon or if Olly’s mum was jumping the gun. A guardian often is appointed where a dispute is intractable, where there is high conflict or where there is a worry that allegations of domestic abuse may have been fabricated or exaggerated and that the parental hostility driving such allegations may be emotionally abusive. They are also automatically appointed where social services start care proceedings (A precursor to removing a child). But appointment of a guardian is not necessarily an indicator a child will be removed into foster care. What we don’t know is whether in this case a removal of Olly into foster care was really on the horizon, whether Olly’s mum has misunderstood advice received or panicked unduly.
We also know that Mr Sheridan’s position is that Olly’s mum suffers from some mental health issues. Whilst Olly’s mum refers in her own letter to being prescribed anti-depressants as a result of abuse and the consequent anxiety it is not clear what the nature and extent of any mental health difficulties are, whether they are current or even relevant.
It is absolutely clear that Olly’s parents have radically different perspectives on their relationship and what is in Olly’s best interests (a further marker of this is in the fact that Olly is given the surname Sheridan in the press release published by his father’s solicitors, most likely his registered name, whilst the maternal family Facebook pages refer to him as Yarrow). We don’t know how far into unpicking the conflict and dispute the Family Court had got before Olly disappeared. We don’t know whether Olly’s mum had been disbelieved by the court, had felt unable to go through with a fact finding hearing or whether she had for some reason not raised her allegations in the Family Court context. Due to the limited information available it is really impossible to form any view as to the rights and wrongs of this case, but it will certainly be more difficult for Olly’s mum to prove any allegations and persuade a court that Olly needs protecting from his dad whilst she is away with him.
The information above is taken from publicly available information. At this time this is mostly press reports, the letter from Olly’s mother on Facebook and the press release from Mr Sheridan’s solicitors.
On 3 January The Daily Mail ran a piece : ‘My boy needs his parents not a life on the run’: Father makes emotional plea to ex-partner who’s been missing with their son, three, for SIX MONTHS.
On 4 January The Sun ran : ‘WHY I VANISHED’ Missing mum who disappeared with son, 3, before family court hearing ‘says she “had no choice” in emotional letter to family’, and incorporate a photo of the handwritten letter from Ellie Yarrow-Sanders.
On the same day The Mirror ran : Mum missing with son, 3, has ‘gone to ground’ and not used bank cards or mobile in 6 months.
There are lots of other items in similar terms, some dating from around 19 December, some from January. All the news reports we’ve seen contain very similar information. The press release from which much information is taken can be read in full here.
We think it’s also important to note some other information :
Firstly, Ellie’s sister’s boyfriend has been running a crowdfunding page for ‘justice for Ellie and Olly’. The crowdfunding page says it is for legal fees for maternal family members who are ‘on trial at the hands of the High Court’ because ‘the High Court believes they are involved and are hiding information’. If there are committal proceedings underway for failing to comply with an order of the High Court we anticipate that there will be published judgments in due course – any such hearings should be held in public. An update suggests that there were five lawyers in court at one of these hearings (not including the maternal family members under suspicion) – it is difficult to work out who the five might have been representing – probably the parents, child, social services and police.
Secondly, a petition on change.org now calls for Ellie’s story to be made public so that it can be explained why she has run. The petition appears to be connected to the Women’s Coalition who were involved in the Rebecca Minnock case. They describe this case with the headline : ‘Judge launches manhunt for protective mother’, saying that the judge is using mainstream media to ‘spread lies about [the mother’ and that the media are ‘covering only [the judge’s] lies and distortions, while completely omitting Ellie’s side of the story’. The Women’s Coalition, drawing explicit parallels with the Minnock and Samantha Baldwin cases, say they are ‘launching a counterattack to this public lynching of a wonderful mother’. It’s unclear what judicial ‘lies’ they are railing against, since the information that has been published is very basic and does not really tell us anything about what has been going on above and beyond the actual circumstances of their disappearance.
Whilst this may yet be shown to be an example of the Family Court failing to protect a vulnerable mother and child from an abusive father, it would be wholly wrong to jump to any conclusions without knowing what has gone on behind closed doors. It would indeed be helpful for Mr Justice David Williams to publish his judgment or some information about the proceedings, in order to quell the mistrust that grows out of the absence of factual information from the court every time one of these missing mums cases hits the headlines.
However, the reality on the ground may be far more complex. The High Court’s first priority will be to do whatever is necessary to locate and get Olly back home safely. It may be that publishing details of what has happened to date in the Family Court case would make that most important task more risky. We hope that in due course, when it can be safely and appropriately done without compromising Olly’s welfare, some better information is provided for those worried at how the Family Courts treat mothers, fathers and those who complain or or are accused of domestic abuse.
We hope to update this post when further information becomes available. We’ve been cautious about what we have linked to in this post because we are unsure whether any reporting restrictions apply and if so what their terms are. Some news items refer to the lifting of a ‘gagging order’ or ‘anonymity ruling’. This might just be an order under s97(4) Children Act 1989 permitting naming and sharing of photos, or it might be that there was a specific order restricting publication of information – which might have been only partially lifted.
If we are able to attend and report from future hearings we will.
UPDATE : It’s been pointed out we had misspelt Olly as Ollie throughout this post, which we’ve now corrected (the writer has an Ollie in her family).
IF YOU LIKED THIS POST (AND IF YOU ARE ABLE), PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A DONATION TO THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT. We are a small charity with limited resources and a mainly volunteer team. We are always keen to hear from potential new volunteers.
A fair article marred only by referring to Ellie as ‘jumping the gun’ with the implication being that she overreacted, which, of course, we can’t know, without knowing the full background to the story. The tabloid- style headline isn’t as objective as, maybe, it could have been.
We refer to Ellie *possibly* jumping the gun in the sense that she left to avoid her son being taken into foster care when it isn’t actually clear that was about to happen. We set out alternative explanations and are explicit that we don’t know whether she overreacted, just that she might have done.
We aren’t sure what is lacking objectivity in the headline. It was intended to assist readers to identify this as a post related to the story they will have seen in the news and it asks an open question.
“Whilst this may yet be shown to be an example of the Family Court failing to protect a vulnerable mother and child from an abusive father”
Unconscious bias? An even-handed treatment would also have referred to the converse actual emotional abuse by the mother in going on the run or, at the very least, possible emotional abuse.
The rider “it would be wholly wrong to jump to any conclusions without knowing what has gone on behind closed doors.” doesn’t really balance the scales.
Thanks for your comment Mike,
We have included this line because of the fact that there are known specific accusations that this is an example of failure to protect victims of domestic abuse which we felt needed to be addressed because it is being widely touted on limited evidence. Conversely, there is no explicit public allegation of emotional abuse. We have nonetheless explained elsewhere in the piece that emotional abuse may well be an issue in the case : “If Olly’s mum’s allegations had been found to have been fabricated (rather than just not proved), that might indeed have been a ‘critical’ hearing, because the court would probably having been beginning to consider how to protect Olly from false allegations and emotional abuse.
We know from the mother’s letter that she was worried about accusations of emotional abuse…”
We don’t think we have been biased here, and the difference in treatment relates to the disparity in the (potentially) contradictory narratives / perspectives and the extent to which they are gathering steam on social media etc.
[NOTE FROM THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT : WE CANNOT CONDONE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CHILD PROTECTION OR FAMILY COURT PROCESSES – SEE OUR COMMENT BELOW]
We give support to mothers who are domestic abuse victims going through family court. In most cases we have to advise them at some point to stop talking about abuse and agree to contact because they are being threatened with loss of residence. There are also many mothers who are sending their children to contact where the children are being abuse, some being very serious abuse, but we have to tell them not to report it or they will lose residence. There is usually no proof of abuse because abusers hide their behaviour…and family courts have a habit of not believing children and mothers. Most have emotional, physical and mental health issues due to the abuse and are in great distress while living in fear. The courts seem relentless in their pursuit of ensuring fathers have contact, whatever their behaviour. We know that in most cases where the mother or children report abuse the outcome will be that the father will be given contact, usually unsupervised. There is almost no point in fighting it or presenting concerns. Courts will not listen and, in some cases, will act to twist facts and evidence. This is the reality of the current state of family courts. Its dark and sinister. The professionals need to stop hiding behind their ‘rational’ (yet often illogical) aura, the tick boxes and tools…and face the mass injustices they are creating.
Its a natural instinct to want to run when faced with the terror of losing your child and if family courts continue to with the current track they are on, this is going to happen more and more along with other acts of desperation. As the Welsh Cafcass review this year stated, there is a ticking timebomb waiting…
We cannot support suggestions that parents should disengage from court proceedings. The outcome for a parent who does so (particularly one who abducts a child and breaches court orders) is likely to be worse than if that parent participates in the process and presents their evidence. We hope to write more about this in future days.
Abduction: The action of forcibly taking someone away against their will.
(in legal use) the illegal removal of a child from its parents or guardians
(English Oxford Dictionary)
The use of the words abduction and kidnapping are surely tabloid dramatics. [Edited for legal reasons] We don’t know the full story but we know whats happening to abuse victims in family court so its possible to make a reasonable guess that this is another mother being framed using some model of parental alienation or mental health issue made up by non-experts without a proper assessment. We know this is very common, we have proof.
Any parent can choose to disengage from the court process. Some parents walk away and give up on their child because the system is incapable of finding a solution and is causing the parent/s and child too much pain. It is true that if you run and you are caught, then you WILL be punished severely. The sad solution is that you and your child cope with contact with the perpetrator and learn how to deal with a narcissist, learn techniques like Grey Rock and help your child to set some boundaries especially if they are being sexually abused. Give your child love and acceptance and hope they come out of it with less damage than if you lost residence.
It could be argued that family courts are abducting children…forcibly taking them from parents, placing them with abusive parents for years, and ignoring them when they say they are afraid. Courts need to think clearly about these children who are now becoming adults. They are abused, damaged, angry, resentful, confused after living with a narcissistic/sociopathic abuse. They will come together at some point in the not too distant future and want justice…some will want revenge. You can only push people so far.
Court professionals have a problem with empathy and emotion, and that could be their downfall.
Abduction is legally accurate in this instance. The legal definition does not in fact refer to the wishes or will of the child, only the lawfulness of the child being taken away by the person abducting.
It doesn’t matter what evidence you present your child is going to the abuser and if you argue about it the abuser gets full residency,she is protecting her child it’s a mothers natural instinct when there is danger.The UK needs to hang it’s head in shame this is injustice in a supposedly democratic country.How this country treats victims and their children is shameful it puts perpetrators rights above the victims.
Totally agree with Donna. The family court is a disgrace! [Edited for legal reasons] what hope is there? My heart breaks for these mothers. Even if these mothers did fabricate (I don’t believe they did, because of my experience with family court) the punishment is way too great, both for the mother and especially for a child being torn from their mother. Their nightmares will stay with them for a very long time.The damage is is irreparable.
“What hope is there?” Seriously, you’re asking what hope there is for MOTHERS in the “Family” Courts?
The Courts where the default order in 98% of cases is (to use the widely-understood vernacular) residence to the mother, with alternate weekend contact to the father, possibly some mid-week contact, and a percentage of school holiday contact. Orders which are regularly breached by mothers without sanction or effective enforcement for fathers. Courts where perjured evidence of domestic violence and child sex abuse is routinely encouraged and facilitated.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if a father had abducted his child and vanished for a week, let alone 6 months? They’d have released the bloodhounds months ago, not be offering sweetheart deals!
You’re ‘aving a larf!
I know from first hand experience how fathers can act and lie to punish a wife, she needs support and be helped
Hi, I’ve taken your name out to protect your identity – Annie
I am all for supporting women who are being psychologically and emotionally abused . But I have grave concerns about personal perspective of coercive control and using that to alienate fathers ! It’s actually very damaging for the father and child’s life . Just because a woman’s perspective is not legally considered as abuse the court is considered unfair ! That’s just very narrow minded and doesn’t help .. domestic violence agencies and refugees should not encourage this rhetoric and work against the courts they should support genuine cases and not women who misuse the system to punish their partners whom they perceive as narcissists ! Just because they don’t Agree on which sofa to purchase !! It undermines genuine cases and is damming ! Domestic violence is a serious issue not just a perspective ..