Child arrangement court order

Smileless,

What if what the parents tell their kids about the family does not match what the gp say? Everybody has different point of view about the same situation

Don't you see how confusing that would be for the gc?

The parents are in charge of communicating the family legacy. Gp are not in charge of that or making sure the whole family picture is "complete"

Even if contact is granted, that is not what its for

It is the parents job to decide how and when to teach the children about their herritage, especially if they come from a history with a lot of opression, bloodshed & war, or if religion is strongly intertwined in their heritage etc.

But it wasn’t about a side of a family, the argument now was a culture/ethiniticy/background.

The parent will pass on what they want a child to know

Lovely grandparents are lovely

They are not a necessity

They are just one relative. One (or two) members of the extended family.

There are plenty of other ways to know your heritage or have a wholesome family life! Half my GPs were dead before I was born, I still knew who I was an where I came from. I still had aunts and uncles and family and a PARENT from that side!

A grandparent, even a pair of grandparents, are not "a whole side" of a childs family!

a estranged parent

That's true Summerlove but it doesn't alter the fact that when parents estrange one set of GP's and the entire side of one family, the children don't have access to both sides.

I met with one of my cousins yesterday and we were talking about our deceased maternal GM's siblings. I remembered details which she'd forgotten and she did the same.

Yes, when our GC are older if they want too, they'll be able to research their family tree. They'll get certain facts about us, their GP's and their GGM's but they wont know us. They wont have been told the stories that put the flesh on the bones, so to speak.

We'll make sure they have some photo's of relatives they never knew but that's all they'll be, pictures of strangers. Is an estranged going to talk about the family s/he denied her/his children knowing when they had the chance? Not very likely is it.

namsnanny
Surely you see that a child from two backgrounds will still have access to that background even without grandparents as they will have a parent??

Your granddaughter is lucky to have you be so reasonable and understanding paddyann. Properly putting her needs firsf

I'm the GP of a child who has been shared between 4 houses for almost all her life .She is,in the main a happy child but went through a bad patch a couple of years ago when she was filling her school bag with "stuff" because she was never sure which house she was going to that night .
After some discussion it was decided that there are two houses she calls home ,her mothers and ours ,other granny and grampa will still collect her from school but take her home an dstay there with her .
When she comes here its her own choice if she wants to sleep here or at her dads .That will change as theres a new baby due within days .We think she'll want to live with Dad who loves her and has always been a good dad ,but if she decides to sleep here ,thats fine with us.
The child should be the priority .Not always the case when people are fighting over them .Grandparents ,however loving must remember the parents are in charge .Its been lovely having our wee madam around for the 9 years we've had her but we always knew there would come a time when she wanted to move with dad to their own home .That didn't happen when he moved out but the new baby may be the nudge that makes it happen.We'll miss her of course but it will be a new adventure for her having a wee sister to share her room and be her friend

It was an example. Not an observation of their capabilities.

Sorry Nonanan2 I should have chosen a clearer example for you .

Doria is American.

You dont think that H&M are capable of showing their children both cultures? They certainly have the means to visit America fairly frequently.

Im sure that Doria is a fantastic grandmother. But it is M&Hs job to raise their children with a blend of both cultures. I do not doubt M's ability, as an American women of colour, to expose the child to that side of things.

Err he is being raised by Meghan! A woman of colour!

If prince harry’s Son Archie grows up to marry a white partner and is estranged from Megan’s black African American heritage. He has no understanding of his true family. Just an example.

I actually know a case where the GP argued that they were the childs "link" to their nationality.

They spectacularly disregarded that their AC, the childs parent, was also that nationality.

They showed their true colours there!

If the child is half 'insert ethnicity' then they will have a parent of that ethnicity!

And possibly aunts/uncles/cousins/friends.

GPs arent going to be the only people of that ethnicity in their lives!

Coolgran I think you recognise that all GPs are not as portrayed in many of the posts. Those GPs are probably few and far between as are unreasonable parents. Both exist not just GPs.

Yes I totally agree that the children's interest is paramount but so should the parents. To cut a child off from his/her heritage must be wrong if it is just to spite the GP rather than because of any effect on the child. How is such a child going to feel about that? If a child knows its GPs are kind and loving and then they are deprived of that love it must be horrible.

May I suggest a scenario? If a child comes from a non-white ethnic group and is not allowed to see any of its non-white relatives, surely that is harmful for the child? Should they be denied their heritage? Of course this is assuming the GPs have never done anything harmful to the child.

What I was suggesting was that now and again a couple of hours could be found for a visit with grandparents

There will never be a court order that says something as vague and/or flexible as "now and then"

No coercion or forcing involved.

"Court" "ordered" contact is by naturr "forced"

notanan2 I wasn't suggesting that a child should spend downtime in a contact centre. Or indeed be 'forced' to live between 3 houses. I wasn't suggesting anything on a regular basis and certainly nothing this extreme.

Well that is what court ordered contact is!

That is what GPs who go to court for contact are inflicting on the child.

That would be reasonable for most people. The problem is that for some GPs that's not enough (there's a thread on Mumsnet about GPs complaining that seeing their GS twice a week isn't enough and they want more!), or they aren't willing to compromise, and there are some GPs who are overbearing, critical, or even toxic. Why would a parent want their child around someone who behaves worse than their child? What kind of example does such a person set?

The other problem occurs when GPs decide that they want to go to court because they want to put their desires ahead of the best interests of their GC. That's a problem. That's a very serious problem. If you truly have the best interests of the children at heart, why are you putting the family through the stress and expense of court? Even without attorneys, there will be court costs, child care costs, and time off work involved. That's money that isn't available to support the child's basic needs, not to mention the stress on the family. If getting time with your GC is more important to you than them having enough to eat and a healthy environment, then frankly, you're someone who has no business being around children.

notanan2 I wasn't suggesting that a child should spend downtime in a contact centre. Or indeed be 'forced' to live between 3 houses. I wasn't suggesting anything on a regular basis and certainly nothing this extreme.

What I was suggesting was that now and again a couple of hours could be found for a visit with grandparents. Even just a visit every couple of months, to go bowling, or to go to the park and have lunch.

No coercion or forcing involved. Just a willingness between parents and grandparents to let children know they haven't been forgotten by their grandparents.

Here's the thing. The child's parents are the parents.

GPs insisting on something after being told no indicates that the GPs don't feel the parents are acting in the child's best interest.

Unless the GP is around 24/7, he/she doesn't really have the full picture of what is in the child's best interest. Generally it's accepted that the parents have their children's best interests at heart.

Even if mediation doesn't cost money directly, there are additional costs. Time must be taken off work. Child care must be arranged. The parents will be stressed - and the child will pick up on that. It's quite possible, in some families, that this may result in food coming out of the child's mouth because they don't have the extra cash available to cover these costs.

If GPs are prepared to put their desire to see their GC over their GC's rights to have their basic needs met, it's pretty clear to me that the GPs don't really have the child's best interests at heart. That alone should be a reason for them not to see their GC.

Pity gp cannot compromise.

Did I say i truly hate the autocorrect feature?

It is also a pity up cannot compromise. It goes both ways.

Sometimes, compromise is not even possible. The issue is so big that the parents are protecting their kids from harm, no matter where it comes from

Even well intentioned loving gp- as my narc parents would define themselves - can harm the kids.
I told the story of my parents feeding fruit to my niece against my sister's rules, got her sick and then denied they did overfeed her. Then they complained how a crying sick baby disturbed their sleep.
If those gp love their gc, they truly suck showing they want the best for her.