Child arrangement court order

I tell children that sometimes people mean to do things but don't always get around to it and that doesn't make them a liar. It probably just makes them a bit tired and overwhelmed or just that they don't want to upset the child by saying no. Anyone agreeing with the child and saying their parent is bad for that has something fundamentally wrong with them.

It might be helpful if we didn't keep throwing around the word 'toxic'. There are toxic parents and toxic GP's but this recent discussion is about children seeing a parent or GP as a liar or honest, not toxic.

A child will know if a P or GP is lying if they witness one or the other saying something they know not to be true.

Likewise, anyone agreeing with a child in that scenario that a GP is bad for that has something fundamentally wrong with them.

I mean, I get asked by children 100 times a day if we can do a dance video or go in the field or read a certain book. A million fantastic ideas that I would love to fit in. I don't want to say no, so I say maybe and if we have time and maybe at story time. Some I can fit in, some I can't and some I probably forget. Even with the best will in the world, it's just not possible. Am I therefore a liar?

Smileless,

Your example of tea at grandma's - it is phrased in a very adult point of view, a young child may not put that much value in tea at grandma's. They prefer playing with their friends, watching tv, going to park, etc.

In your scenario:
1. Grandma issues an invite for tea
2. Mother says no as they already have plans to go out
3. Mother and child end up staying home

Two quick conclusions:
1. Something may have happened that the plans to go outside are cancelled- weather related, store is closed, other party they were going to visit has cancelled, child got sick, priorities at home changed (laundry is more urgent, for example), plans are rescheduled, etc.
Life happens and young families plan on the fly and last minute - time is very scarce
2. The grandma may not accept a no for an answer without a reason - a no should be sufficient
In order to protect grandma's feelings, the mother JADEs.

A 5 year old is very happily redirected to another activity and does not act as a judge who is right or wrong (lies vs honest)

This scenario is honestly very grandma oriented - tea with grandma has the most value for grandma than anybody else involved

Mothers of young kids barely have time for a cup of tea themselves, they are lucky if they can make the tea at home and drink it while it is hot

Well obviously Smile.

That's irrelevant Hithere. It's not about whether or not the child wants to have tea at GM's, it's about the child hearing mum say why they aren't going, and knowing what mum has said ie the reason why, isn't true.

You regard the scenario I gave as "very grandma oriented" and IMO the posters I am in discussion with are very anti grandma oriented.

All human beings are liars. Kids included ("have you brushed your teeth?")

We all say white lies, to soften the blow, to be polite, avoid an escalation, be able to get away from a bad situation, etc.

Examples -
You are given a present and you do not like it, yet you say "it's lovely"

Somebody wants to sell you something and won't leave you alone. You say you are in a rush and are late to see your friends.

You go shopping and see a blouse you like- too expensive. The salesperson puts pressure on you to buy it and you say you will think about it and come back.

Smileless,

It can also be said you are a very anti-parents.

Just because I can play devil's advocate and show another side of the picture does not make me anti grandparents

Smileless,

What the mother said, it can be true in that moment - the mother did have plans to go out

Whether they end up materializing or not - depends on what happens next.

Mothers and fathers of young kids adapt to life as it happens.

And just because "I can play devil's advocate and show a another side of the picture does not make me" anti parents Hithere.

I don't agree that you are showing another side to this picture. The examples you've just given are irrelevant. This discussion is about issues of lying regarding children, P's and GP's, it's specific to that, your examples aren't.

"What the mother said, it can be true in that moment - the mother did have plans to go out" yes that's possible but IMO that sounds like something the mother would claim if caught out in a lie.

Smileless

Are you able to acknowledge the mother may have not lied?

I'm not anti grandparents either, the side of my family I wasn't alienated from were lovely. The 3 grandparents my children have contact with are also lovely.

I am also tired of being told what I can and can't say or having it pointed out that the same is true in reverse too, when I did not say it wasn't, I was just responding to the scenario given. Its petulant, uncompromising, argumentative and not conductive to discussion.

Yes I am able to acknowledge that Hithere, are you able to acknowledge that a child can interpret for his/her self from what they have personally experienced whether an adult lies?

That they do not have to be influenced by another to come to that conclusion? Because this is what this discussion is about.

It might have come across better if in your post which said "Anyone agreeing with the child and saying their parent is bad for that has something fundamentally wrong with them" you'd have referred to a parent or a GP Razz.

It may not have been your intention but it came across to me as siding with parents when this discussion is about a child's P's and GP's.

Being disagreed with is not saying what you may or may not post and rather than being "petulant, uncompromising, argumentative and not conductive to discussion" it is IMO none of the first 3 and the 4th is generally to be expected when discussions are taking place, especially when they're about such an emotive subject.

That should have read 'none of the first 3 and are to be expected when discussions are taking place, especially when they're about such an emotive subject'.

And I read it before posting!!

1. 5 year olds do follow particular stages of development but do have different ways of thinking within those. My 5 year old granddaughter is quite clear on occasions that her mother lies..."Mummy says she hasn't got any chocolate but I can see it in the cupboard" Equally another day my 5 year old granddaughter will tell me that I am lying and might tell her parents that I lied to her. "You said we were having strawberries for tea, but we haven't." Both scenarios can be understood by posters, I imagine without explanation from me, ...and can be responded to appropriately for the child, to help them think things through as they make sense of people's behaviour.

2. My 5 year old granddaughter will also tell me that I "never lie to her" but" Mummy/Daddy do"; neither statement is true, there is no coaching, it is just her reality at a particular point in time. Again, no need for me to get in to the appropriate responses for her. In other circumstances as in the original scenario given, only the people involved could the best response for that child in that context.

...so 5 year old children have different viewpoints for different reasons at different points depending on context, motivation and their aims at that point!

3. I have worked with many 5 year olds and seen this changing views/judgements of situations many many times as they try to make sense of and negotiate through life and work out where they and others fit!

4. Parents and Grandparents are not an amorphous mass all the same within "their group"; we are all individuals! Stating the obvious but it feels as if it needs to be said somehow. Both "groups" will have individuals in who behave appropriately and individuals in who do not. Each individual's experiences will shape their responses and may well shape their views of all members of the other group - fairly or possibly unfairly, but disagreement does not automatically suggest bias towards one "group" or prejudice against the other "group" although it can do!

5. People trying to discuss honestly on here are not necessarily being petulant or trying to shut discussions down just because they are trying to put another viewpoint...although it does sometimes seem that any disagreement is viewed that way. That is a shame.

Smile, I have tried very hard to get to know you, told you several times I think these cases are individual and left them at 50/50 to be as fair as possible. I have been very honest with you, yet you make the same assumptions about me and pull me up when I am not even responsing to you. All I can do is laugh really because apparently it's all my own fault.

Of course a child recognizes lies in adults.

It is something else to twist this into an argument lying parents vs honest grandma.

Mad I think your comment was fair but it is frustrating to be accused of doing something you are very determined not to be doing. There is nothing between the lines of what I am saying here. I have been supportive on many occasions to EPs.

razz no you don't know if I am telling the truth, nor do I know whether you or anyone on here is truthful. When I read a comment like that I wonder what sort of person would make it. As I don't tell lies I don't assume others do unless there is evidence. Were I a liar I might well assume that others were.

GG with respect I heard it, I know the situation, you don't.

All this sanctimonious claptrap about all parents being angels and all GP being harmful is just complete rubbish and the determination of some to deny that parents are sometimes the cause of the problem indicates to me that they must be the problem. I don't have any problems with my DILs or GC and I never cut out my own or DH's family but I have seen some horrible people who cut others off for totally selfish reasons.

Incidentally I remember DS being told the biscuits had all gone when he could see there were still some in the tin. He said 'not true', he was under 3 at the time. Those who suggests children don't know what is true and what is not are either inexperienced with young children, forgetful or just pushing their argument when knowing they are wrong.

Yes, GG the child may have lacked judgement because they saw far more of the mother than the grandmother and had far more opportunity to observe the mother's lies. Therefore the child was accurate about the mother but may not have been about the grandmother.

Please don't think I am talking about any of those scenarios I am not. The parent concerned lies all the time, blatantly, and the child would have to be stupid not to see it. This was not a conversation where the GP was having any discussion about what the mother said because the GP is scrupulous about not talking about the mother or anything that happens at home. Also the child has been threatened if they ever talk about the parent outside the home so the GP is extremely careful not put the child in any position where the mother would carry out the threats.

I didn't want to be so direct but the assumption that I am lying and the determination to not take any notice has made me feel it necessary to do so. Smile has read and taken on board what I said but most others have, for some reason I don't understand, refused to accept that what I say is absolutely factual.

Yes, I accept that you actually believe children should be taken away from a whole side of their family and have to wait until they are old enough to research and make direct contact to find out why. However, I don't agree. I think any parent who does that to children who have been enjoying great relationships with the other side of their family may be permanently harmed by being suddenly cut off from them. Of course I am assuming the GPs are no risk to the children, just that the parent is not a nice person.

I already explained that I wasn't calling you a liar Non ie, just making a point.

Yes, razz but it looked like an accusation to me, it added exactly nothing to the debate and I wonder why it is only my comment that you said that about. If you had said you didn't know if anyone was telling the truth that would not have been personal. You were personal and an apology would be appropriate and accepted.

I apologise that my comment hurt you, it was not intended to. I was just saying that children caught in the middle of something may not know who is the really liar. Again though your essay up there is making a lot of assumptions about estranged children commenting here when I haven't seen any of them do as you accuse and I think you owe an apology too, although I accept your anger at me might be some of the cause when you wrote it.

But I do see it sounded personal and I do apologise because I didn't think that through.