Help us: Allow children to see their grandparents

But it is about grandparents wanting to see their grandchildren. The petition has been initiated by grandparents not by the grandchildren. Has anyone investigated how many children who do not see their grandparents have actively asked to see them? How many are leading perfectly happy lives with their parents and would not benefit from having conflicted adults introduced into their lives.
Could grandparents who obviously have quite bitter feelings towards their children refrain from introducing that bitterness into the grandchildrens awareness? Not from what I've seen. How damaging would that be for a child?

Due to the General Election this petition will end as all petitions on May 3rd.

I think I'm slowly losing the will to live. This petition is about CHILDREN BEING ABLE TO SEE THEIR GP's for goodness sake.

Why should children seeing their GP's stop their parents from moving? We have friends who 'see' their GC on a regular basis on skype because they lived in Aus. and are now living in the USA.

"Does it encroach on family time"GP's are a part of these children's family. It goes without saying that "people who are silently waiting to fight it tooth and nail if it were to gain any meaningful ground" aren't the children being deprived of their GP's or GP's who simply want to know their GC.

I'm extremely concerned about this petition.
However I know many people who are silently waiting to fight it tooth and nail if it were to gain any meaningful ground.

Does it stop the parents moving? Does it encroach on family time?
Will the grandparents be expected to pay maintainaince. I mean if they get to make demands and get to dictate to the actual parents then surely they should get the whole load.

The stark reality illustrated in this petition is that there are one million children who don't see their GP's. ONE MILLION.

If we were to work on the assumption that there on average 2 children per family that would equate to half a million GP's who don't see their GC. But this petition isn't on behalf of the half a million GP's it's on the behalf of those one million children. So why are we constantly seeing posts referring to GP's wanting to see their GC? Why aren't the rights and needs of these GC being taken into account here?

Yes, EGP's want to see their GC but is it right to assume that their GC don't want to see them? Have they even been asked or given the opportunity to do so? Do some of them even know that these GP's exist?

"One parent is not keeping GP's from seeing the child" is questionable Norah if one of the parents is putting pressure on the other to keep their child(ren) from their parents and as is often the case, their entire family.

We and I know we're not the only ones have looked to our own AC to gain access, but the result is the same; silence not even an explanation just deafening silence.

If both parents are living and the GCs family is together, one parent is not keeping GPs from seeing the child. It's an agreement between 2 full on adult parents.

EGPs, in my opinion, need to look to their own AC to gain access.

I had lovely relationships to all my GP. My GC and GGC have the same, to us. But I do not believe GPs should be able to make AC to give GC over because that is what the GPs want.

Thank you Mumof3

The problem is Smileless unfortunately any legislation just isn't workable that's why no government has developed it.

However I truly believe the goodness in you and the estrangement is due to the serious problems in your son and daughter in law. You and your husband have my deepest thoughts and hugs.

There is the children act and grandparents can apply to the court if they can prove that there is an essential bond between grandparents/child. In fact in cases of child protection Social services will come to the grandparents 1st to take the child/children.

Unfortunately family life can be very complicated (too complicated for most regular families to comprehend). On mumsnet currently there is a young
Mom terrified of her violent partner taking her to caught for access to kids and the grandmother has been spotted hanging around her house. Can you imagine what that poor mom having to go through. As with out a shadow of a doubt the Dad would go through his mom to see the children, if given the chance.

Parents have to have the responsibility but also they will have to be able to justify their choices.

Yes MOnica "Small children are vulnerable and not all adults are benevolent". Small children are vulnerable to the whim of parents who cut their GP's out of their lives. AC who do this just because they can are far from benevolent.

Of course any legislation surrounding this issue "needs to be carefully considered" and the purpose of petitions like this is bring the issue out into the open so that legislation can be considered.

Any reasonable person wants families to all be happy bunnies together, seeing each other regularly etc etc.

But it is an illusion to think this is always possible. Small children are vulnerable and not all adults are benevolent. When family relationships breakdown each side tends to see themselves as the injured party.

All I am saying is that the wording of this petition is far too woolly and unspecific and legislation on this topic is fraught with problems and needs to be very carefully considered. You might as well put up a petition to say that parliament should legislate so that all marriages should be happy.

The benefit of this petition and others like it is that they bring the matter out into the open. It then becomes a matter for public debate and I don't see why that is an issue.

I wonder how many werewhen they saw the statistic of 1 million children not seeing their GP's. We don't see ours, but knowing that they are just 2 out of a millionme.

The majority of posts on this thread are raising concerns about unfit GP's having contact with their GC and during my 4+ years of posting about estrangement on GN this is a constant argument. No unfit adult should be in contact with children regardless of their biological relationship with that child.

IMO constant references to toxic and abusive GP's just muddies the waters and hinders a sensible discussion about the rights of children to know their extended family. This right is part of the Children Act which doesn't go on to say providing that member or those members are not toxic and/or abusive, because that's obvious; it doesn't have to be said.

The issue of GC being denied a relationship with their GPs on the rare occasions it is publicly discussed, more often than not focuses on children whose parents are no longer together resulting in those children being denied contact with one set of their GP's. The issue of children being denied contact with one set of GP's because their parents have 'fallen out with them' is hardly ever mentioned.

As for GC who have little physical contact with their GP's because they live abroad (a point made earlier) what does this petition have to do with that!!! That relationship can be sustained with letters, telephone calls, emails, skype and the exchange of gifts and cards.

GC who are not allowed to have contact with their GP's because their GP's have been CO have none of those things and in many instances don't even know their GP's exist.

I don't think that's a situation that can be governed by law.

Right. What about (and I realise this is terrible to consider) if one of your children died and their partner stopped you having contact with the children - maybe after they had re-married?

Would you not be hopeful that a law was in place which would help you to have continueing contact with the children?

(This may seem unlikely - it has happened to a friend of mine)

Just because it is going to be difficult to form law that covers all eventualities shouldn`t mean that we don`t even start to consider it.

eddiecat if my relationship with my DCs had broken down to the extent that I wasn't allowed to see them (the DCs) I would be filled with unimaginable grief.
But, much as I love my DGCs, it would be the loss of the relationship with my beloved children that would matter to me.

janeainsworth - you didn`t actually answer my question - what would you do if you were stopped from having any contact with your grandchildren?

eddiecat 3 of my grandchildren live in America, so I have very infrequent contact with them.
In fact that demonstrates another weakness of the petition.
It does not specify what is meant by contact. Once a year? Once every two years? Face to face? Via letter? Via Skype?
How on earth can you force grandparents to make long journeys to enable contact with grandchildren?
Would grandparents unable to provide contact be guilty of a criminal offence?
The petition is ill-thought out and unworkable.

I understand what you're trying to do, Annie. And my guess would be 50% too, maybe more (no stats, just a guess). But I won't sign this petition either - sorry - way too broad, imo. It's not just yours though - most of them are, as far as I'm concerned.

janeainsworth - Presumably you have contact with your grandchildren. Just as a matter of interest - if this was suddenly stopped what would you do?

(please don`t tell me it won`t happen to you. As you have said yourself, there are many reasons why family relationships break down and something may well happen to your family which you have no control over)

I think that children have a right to be loved and cared for, to be adequately housed and fed, and to a good education.
Love and care are usually provided by their parents.
I don't think children have a right to have love and care provided by a specific person or people. That is unworkable - some children sadly lose their parents at an early age, or their parents are unable to adequately fulfill their parental responsibilities.
And I think that the 'right' to have access to the extended family, as envisaged by the petition, is merely a disguise for a demand for grandparents' rights.

Just wondering - are you saying that grandchildren do not have a right to have a relationship with their grandparents? Or indeed with the wider family who are usually cut off when grandparents are?

If you agree that children should be able to see grandparents where there is no risk involved - how would you enable this to happen without a change in the law?

eddiecat78 The purpose of a petition is presumably to seek to change the law. I would never support a petition asking for a change in the law, where the change, as requested in the petition is too wide or loose in its coverage or, as worded here, could put a group of vulnerable people, in this case children, at risk.

Clearly the rights (responsibilities) of parents to their children are not a part of this petition.

How could anyone sign a petition that fails to take to account why the parents object to grandchildren interacting with GPs? GPs with unacceptable behaviours.

Rather the courts can continue to sort on an individual case by case basis.

To clarify, OP is to a petition - not to mums on the support thread.

Again - it's the wording of the petition.

My understanding from the Petition Website is that there could well be discussion rather than straight forward debates "Debates
Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future. If that’s the case, we’ll tell you how you can find out more about parliamentary debates on the issue raised by your petition.
MPs might consider your petition for a debate before it reaches 100,000 signatures.
We may contact you about the issue covered by your petition. For example, we sometimes invite people who create petitions to take part in a discussion with MPs or government ministers, or to give evidence to a select committee. We may also write to other people or organisations to ask them about the issue raised by your petition."

Again - I cannot see why people are so against this problem being considered by Parliament

If the matter was raised in Parliament as a result of the e-petition, there would be a debate, not a discussion.
Presumably the wording of the motion would be the same as that of the petition.
I think it's unlikely that such a motion would be passed, for the reasons cited by several posters.
If what the petitioners really want is research into estrangement, then that is what the petition should be asking for.