Child arrangement court order

I think maybe it’s a case by case sort of thing.. Only a therapist could say for sure whether a GP is one, the AC is one, both, or neither.

Youre probably right twenty

A narc would probably prefer to just leave the threat hanging in the air...

... whilst telling parents that if it happens its their fault/punishment for going NC...

It was at best a childish thing to say and extremely insulting. Ever heard someone say "well I hope you don't get cancer and have to decide if you want a mastectomy". No, because it's ridiculous, why would you ever put that thought or worry into another person's head. To say that to someone else is cruel. There is absolutely no logical cause to say that to someone who obviously cares greatly about children. You owe Notanan an apology.

No I don't Razzmatazz and once again you have not said what part of my post was disgusting. Why are you talking about cancer for goodness sake? Your post is ridiculous.

Lol

Namsnanny Mon 26-Aug-19 13:45:47 well said. The blinkered view of those with a bad relationship with their families has overtaken this thread. Those of us not involved in court procedures are ignored and our view is not even listened to.

I still think that a child who is not allowed to see loving GPs is being treated cruelly. The 'impact on the child' is imposed by the parent for their own reasons, the child has the 'rights' in law not the parents.

I agree Nonnie it can be very disruptive to a thread when some choose not to listen to others simply because they have a different point of view.

That's what I've been saying on this thread for sometime, that children denied loving GP's are being cruelly treated and that the parents role in this should not be discounted or ignored.

Smile just read the last couple of days and think you are a voice of reason and not of extreme.

I would like to put forward what I suspect can be the case.

A couple split up and, for reasons not to do with the children, one side of the family is cut off completely despite always being trusted to do what the parent demanded with the children.

The GP tries everything they can to discuss seeing the children but the parent refuses to communicate.

The GPs go to a solicitor for advice and the solicitor thinks they have a good case and suggests mediation. The GPs think this a good idea and are happy to pay for it but the parent refuses to go.

What else can the GP do to allow their GC to have access to the other side of her/his family?

I note no one has responded to my post about being cut off from a child's heritage. [sigh]

Thank you Nonnie. Your post exemplifies the dilemma that GP's face.

Bitterness is often a factor in a divorce but why punish your ex wife's or husband's parents by taking away their GP's? You'd think parents who do this would understand the importance of maintaining the established relationships their children still have.

I'm sure I did respond to your post about the importance of children knowing their heritage. I seem to remember saying about putting the flesh on the bones so to speak, that researching a family tree or just having photo's of people you never knew doesn't do. It was last week I think but if I'm wrong and you want to re post, I'll make sure I respond.

I note no one has responded to my post about being cut off from a child's heritage. [sigh]

you note wrong

If a couple splits up it's the parents responsibility to ensure the contact?
If I left my husband it would be my responsibility, when I have my children to take them to see my parents and vice versa.
It wouldn't be my ex husband's job to maintain contact with my parents.
If my ex husband wasn't taking his kids, on his time to see his parents, that isn't my problem.
The kids already split 2 ways.

Where would court end too? What if Grandparents walked away and didn't want anything to do with the child, could the parents take them to court because its a child's 'right' to have a relationship with their Grandparents? They would have no choice.

I'm Scottish and my husband is Irish. Both kids have very little contact with either side but they know their heritage from us, their parents.

Nonnie,
In the case of a divorce, it us very straight forward.
Each parent is responsible for facilitating the relationship with their side of the family during their custody time.

If you contact your son/daughter but he/she refuses to reply, there is something else brewing in the background, not the divorce.

As for children knowing their heritage, while it is important in the long run, it is more crucial for them to let them be kids and enjoy their childhood. They do not need the role of family history custodians at such an early age
Curiosity about their roots will come later and their parents can easily answer their questions.

March,
We cross posted ?

Twinning

Guys, don't say we do not listen and ignore every person who has said, and I repeat, words to the effect of.

OF COURSE LOSING GOOD GRANDPARENTS DAMAGES CHILDREN. SAID GRANDPARENTS THEN GOING TO COURT DAMAGES THEM MORE THOUGH.

Solicitors will tell you that, organisations related to the courts will tell you that and child psychologists will tell you that. Also you are almost guaranteed to lose because parents are considered more important than grandparents which is as it should be. So all that stress and upset and financial loss for nothing.

Your arguments while understandable and coming from the heart do not change that. If you cannot save and stabilise the relationship with your adult children, no matter whose fault the estrangement is. Then you are never going to have a good relationship with those grandchildren, just forced contact for a few hours a week, probably supervised in a contact centre which is expensive, awkward and distressing for everyone, you, your children and your grandchildren. Eventually you might get to take them out on your own terms, but then you have handovers that are distressing for you, your children and your grandchildren.

People have tried to explain this to you kindly and people have gotten frustrated and explained it unkindly. It doesn't change the facts though. The courts aren't going to entertain this unless the circumstances are exceptional, like you literally raised said child for a period of years.

Thinking you are right is not enough to change the law because as much as you push for it, parents are going to push back. Child welfare organisations are going to push back. Checkmate.

What happens if the grandparents get access through a court order but split up?
That's access split between 2 sets of Grandparents and then the other set of Granpatents, or maybe they have separated and remarried, that's another 2 sets.

That's 4 sets of Grandparents, parents (either together or seperated) then other family members...

It is heartbreaking not to see our grandchildren, but i would never think about going to court to get access to see them, i hope one day they will make there own minds up and seek us out.

I wish there was an easy solution as i have heard that one of my grandchildren is very upset that they don't see me anymore, i was a big part of their life for 4 years i looked after them before they started school, but thats the parents choice to cut us out of their life certainly not mine.

A couple splitting up is a completely different situation, we tend to see our grandchildren when dad has them, but not every time as we don't want to take his time with his children, he gets very little as it is.

That is tough Bopeep, I see this one with children often after divorce as a teacher. Sometimes the situation gets a lot better when the parents are able to move on from any heartbreak and I start to see grandparents more at pick up time again. It's natural to side with your own child when a relationship breaks down. Hope things improve for you.

People who work with children and see how difficult it is for children who have to navigate court orders and contact centres relating to parental access will never support any move to increase the amount of court orders a child can be subject to by throwing the gates open to extended family like GPs

As the law currently stands, whether we like it or agree with it, there is a provision that enables GP's to ask the court's permission, to seek leave to apply for a contact order.

As this already exists, the gates are already open to GP's who decide to go down this route. The campaign with regard to GP's having access is not to change the law, but to make it easier for GP's to gain access to the courts.

Only GP's have to have the court's permission before applying for a contact order.

You don't need to have to work with children to be aware of how disruptive and possibly damaging this can be, many of us I'm sure either directly or indirectly, have seen the negative affects on some children when it comes to parental contact rights.

There are cases where one of the parents, following a divorce takes no interest in their child/ren and doesn't bother to maintain contact. This leaves one set of GP's unable to maintain their relationship with their GC because their son or daughter no longer sees them and therefore doesn't take them to see their GP's.

If the GP's former d.i.l. or s.i.l. refuses those GP's access, those are often the cases where GP's go to court. My brother until his retirement was a family lawyer. He didn't handle many cases of GP's seeking contact but of the few he did, the vast majority were due to the aforementioned reasons.

It must break your heart Bopeep to know that the GC whose life you were a big part of is upset that s/he no longer sees you. Seeing less of your other GC so not to impose on the time your DS gets to spend with his children must be hard and seems to the case for many GP's where their GC's parents have divorced.

A sad state of affairs or all concerned.

for all concerned

Permission to drag the family through court is denied if it is found that the GPs motives are vexacious, and they are often assessed to be thus.

It is a safeguard that protects the child from having their family taken to court for vexacious reasons.

This minimises the impact on the child.

Well of course it is notanan. You say "they are often assessed to be thus" (vexacious) do you have anything to substantiate that claim?