A bit late on the uptake here, but this story, about a Welsh mother who allegedly abducted her children, caught my attention like a car crash. The BBC published a matter-of-factly version, whereas The Telegraph’s Richard Alleyne opted for a slightly more hysterical style; a quick search on the net uncovered an article from the Daily Mail too, but on this occasion lets refrain from scraping the barrel… although I can’t say that Alleyne’s attention to detail fills me with confidence either. In one part Jennifer Jones is 45, but further down the article she inexplicably turns 46… and the timeline in this article is structured in reverse/from the bottom up; so in the upper part, Ms Jones is 45 and had already been caught by the police, but in the latter part she reverse-ages to 46 and is still on the run.
Away from the random timeline, Alleyne does a good job of describing Ms Jones and her supporters’ self-pity and proceeds to place great weight on how the children do not want to go back to Spain to be with their father. By now, readers of all this will be divided into two main camps: Camp 1, who have not been through the grind of UK family court proceedings, and whose only experience of the family law machine is the occasional article like this; and Camp 2, people who have been through the family courts, quite likely including a large number of dads who have had to endure accusations of abuse themselves, and it’s this lot who will be screaming out “brainwashing!” and “parental alienation!” at the top of their voices whilst reading Alleyne’s article.
But the concepts of “brainwashing” and “parental alienation” are probably unfamiliar to Camp 1, so quite likely that they are making all kinds of unsavoury assumptions about the colleagues in Camp 2 who are speculating about “brainwashing” and the sinister sounding “parental alienation” whilst seemingly not giving a damn about the children’s distress.
Whilst Alleyne haphazardly stitches together a bunch of quotes from the children expressing their distress at having to return to Spain, he provides no background whatsoever on the father, Mr Pallacin-Cambra, other then the Jones’ accusations. He writes that their father was granted custody in the Spanish courts – on what grounds was the father granted custody? The Telegraph article indicates that the father was clever, powerful and cunning, and leads the reader to believe that after the couples “trial separation” he tricked the mother back to Spain and then (presumably with his alleged cunning omnipotence), managed to get full custody of the children. Really?!!
Alleyne provides even less background on Jennifer Jones other then that she’s a teacher and that she’s in a relationship with John Williams whom she was arrested with. What was it about Jones’ character or actions that made the Spanish judge hand over custody to the father? Custody is not granted to fathers just like that.
No information at all is provided about Jennifer Jones’ partner, John Williams, other then that he’s a builder. Another bloke involved in abduction of someone else’s children – or even “merely” attempting to assimilate someone else’s children as their own whilst pushing out the real father – should set off very, very loud alarm bells (admittedly this touches a nerve, bringing back a bad memory of a gimpish little man who, once upon a time, attempted to impose himself on my daughter, who was 4 at the time). What was Williams’ role in all this? Was he aware that the mother had lost custody of the children? Did he ask pertinent questions instead of just blindly agreeing that this was an injustice?
One character in this whole story who barely gets a mention is the oldest daughter Sara, 16, and who “returned voluntarily to Spain in September”. What assumptions then, are we as Telegraph readers supposed to make of this, and of Alleyne’s sketchy journalism? He is happy to quote the other children’s distress, yet Sara barely gets one sentence at the very end of the article (which, rather comically, reminds me of those passages with the small print slipped in at the end, in with the hope that the reader will not notice it). Where are Sara’s opinions and why did she want to return voluntarily to Spain when her siblings were allegedly distressed at the thought of going back to their dad? If Alleyne’s article is to be taken at face value, then Sara must be a serial masochist who loves being verbally and physically abused by her father.
So I’m sitting with one foot in Camp 2, extremely disappointed that Richard Alleyne has published such a dismal, one sided piece… an article seriously devoid of factual information, concentrating instead on the drama. Some more in-depth information would have been nice, especially details of the judgement granting full custody; instead all we’ve got is badly written sensationalism. It may be that Cambra really is an abusive, controlling tyrant, and that the children’s distress in genuine, but until we know more, it’s a toss up between believing a Telegraph journalist who may have been slightly drunk (or worse) at the time of writing, or drawing my own conclusions based on my own experiences of family court proceedings (whilst being accused of allsorts of nonsense during the said proceedings).