Can someone explain how Janine has full control of Scarlett ? i mean she abandoned her for what, nearly a year ? how can she just come back and take control like that ? This would never happen for real life, Micheal is insane but he was there for his kid, it doesn't really make sense.

It's something that has bugged me since Janine returned.

Janine has money, so if they were to go through the whole legal process...she could easily use her money to win.

"I have deep pockets therefore I win" - very unrealistic. Neither of them could be classed as "good parents" but Michael has rights too, they're practically taking the piss out of the law here.

I agree. It's so annoying.

She has money for good lawyers and returned with that whole post natal depression stuff.

The fact is, whether she left for 8 months or whatever she is still Scarlett's mother, and in the vast majority of cases custody is granted to the mother.

Yes but that doesn't mean Michael has to beg to see his own daughter or that Janine gets to laugh and say "no" simply because she's the mother...or because rich. Granted she can afford a good lawyer but Michael has done nothing for the courts to stop him from seeing his child.

I'm not disputing that Michael would be granted access to the child, but realistically Janine would still retain custody of her. This is EastEnders after all and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Fair enough, and I should specify that I didn't think you were disputing that fact.

The problem is, should someone complain to EE about this case as with the Lola/Lexi custody storyline, you can bet they'd reply with "we always research things and try to make storylines as realistic as possible" which is quite frankly laughable.

Michael never declared to the authorities that Janine had walked out on Scarlet. If i recall he went to great lengths to avoid the nursery group and social services etc finding out he was a single dad. So if he tried to bring that up now Janine could simply deny it as there's no proof.

Legally they are both equal. As others have said, it's making a mockery of the systems in place to suggest that they can be manipulated via monetary methods.

Michael could easily initiate a case and a full application for custody of Scarlett, though it may be that he cannot afford the legal fees.

But either way, Janine isn't in a stronger position by using Michael's attack on her as ammunition, as Michael could just as easily bring up Janine's past issues and convictions, of which she has many of a dubious nature. The story isn't realistic, but then it is a soap opera after all, I guess.

From what I remember Michael brassic and the cheap rubbish solicitor he saw told him to be nice to Janine as the way to go.

Didn't Michael decide to stop his legal action to keep full custody due to Janine's 'deep' pockets. Basically he seemed to have an all or nothing attitude to it 'full custody or no contact at all' as it hurt him every time he said goodbye. Once his lawyer told him he was unlikely to get full custody, he gave up. Though, unless he actually signed something it is hard to see how that could be enforced.

So what if she has money, the law will decide who is the better parent, and I can't see them choosing the mother who was out partying whilst the Daughter had just been born and was being looked after by the father. This isn't a small case which you could just bribe the individual, this would be a whole court case.

The diagnosis of PND (assuming it was really diagnosed, she didn't make it up) is huge in explaining away her abandonment. If she was receiving treatment during that time then she would be deemed to have not been in her right mind - now she is, is capable of looking after the child and for her to lose custody because of a former illness (now. Cured) is unlikely.

Michael could have fought and probably would have been awarded shared custody (at least generous visiting rights) but he seemed to want sole custody or nothing (at that stage) and gave up when he realized he wouldn't get it.

But that's the thing, he could still contest Janine's attempts at sole custody. And of course the courts would take him into account anyway, it's not like they'd just give up on him. That's what irks me about this whole plot.

Yes I agree. He would be able to get legally approved access fairly easily - it is just that they both seemed to want sole custody and nothing less. We do need to know if Michael actually signed anything giving up his rights when he moved out of the house and Janine took over day to day care.

Re Janine having walked out, she also spent weeks sitting by her side at the Hospital when she first born whilst Michael hardly ever visIted and just spent her money. Yes, he bonded with her afterwards but they both have mud to sling re not 'being there' for Scarlet in the first months of her life.

Janine wasn't out partying though. From what I remember Micheal neglected Janine and let her get on with it. That's probably why she left in the first place.

Yes she was, she said herself she was promiscuous and travelling the world.

I'd say we can't know forsure what she during that time. Yes she told Michael that but it is possible she said it to geet a reaction from him, to see if he got jealous. Those 2 play games so given it is the only time it was mentioned she may or may not have been telling the truth just as she may or may not have been telling the truth about PND and what if any treatment she received.

Janine wouldn't be able to change Scarlett's surname, no matter how deep her pockets.

Simply because she is the Mother.!!

In this country, whether it be Soaps or real life, Fathers have very little rights in the eyes of the courts. A child will always be placed with the Mother unless extreme circumstances are evident.

I was with my ex wife for 8 years & we have 2 children. From the moment they were born I did everything I could for them & her. Despite having to work full time while she didn't work I did all the night feeds so she could rest, put them to bed & bathed them every night, made sure she never wanted for anything, gave her everything she wanted, then one day i arrived home to find myself locked out our house because she had met someone else. She ended up with full custody, the house, the car & all the money in our bank account (which she had transferred into another account)

Within 6 weeks of her new 'Relationship' he had attacked her, threatened to kill my children & they ended up living in a hostel for 6 months without me even knowing where they were. THEN she got back together with him !!!

Obviously i raised concerns to this & her response was to cut all contact with my children. He is now in prison for other offences & despite all this I only have access to my children for 1 day a fortnight !!!

This is the ruling of our great British Legal System, so that is why Janine has Full Control......Fathers never win

What if he just decided to just not give Scarlett up to Janine at the time ? I know basically nothing about legal fees so if they went to court and Michael didn't have a lawyer would he still need to pay money in some way ? Also what if he didn't want to go to court, would Janine win just like that ? It doesn't seem like a fair way to win a battle in court, the one with more money wins just because the other hasn't got enough money to defend themself.

That is just wrong in so many ways. It's like fathers are seen as the lesser parent no matter what in this country, that is so unfair.

I'm not an expert in family law myself but generally the assumption is that if you have been called to Court for a hearing, even if a private one so someone chasing a debt, a custody hearing etc, and just don't attend, you are conceding your case and the Judge will automatically find against you - hence if Michael didn't turn up Janine would be awarded full cusody.
If he turned up and represented himself, opposing counsel would tie him up in knots, referring to the way he bullied her on the day of the wedding re the pre nup, perhaps suggesting it brought on labour, his lack of support when they were bot in the Hospital, the fact he immediately started spending her money - all sorts of things. Chances are he'd lose his temper and then they'd probably find against him.
There is no reason for someone to appear unrepresented (that is why we have legal aid) but the criteria is very strict and te perception is you get what you pay for and legal aid lawyers will be inferior to 'private' ones.