Child arrangement court order

IME, at least, parents stop contact between children and GPs because the parents have a reason for doing so.

My FIL has tried to destroy my marriage and has body-shamed me. I wouldn't let my child near him with a 10-foot pole. He is not a safe person. That's my choice as a parent.

I would never allow someone I didn't trust to be around my children. If they don't treat me well, how can I trust them to treat my children well, knowing that my children are half me? Moreover, if my children are seeing that person put Mummy down and be rude to her, or go against what Mummy says, it's teaching the children that this kind of behaviour is acceptable. IME, this kind of thing also tends to occur in situations where the MIL, most commonly, sees her DS's partner as merely an incubator for the GC. Someone who doesn't respect me as a person doesn't get rewarded for their poor behaviour by seeing my children. Period.

About memory boxes - First, I agree, Twenty, that memory boxes should not include lies about the parents. In fact, I'm not sure they should include anything about the parents, just maybe a letter or journal where the GPs express, among other things, their love for their GC and let them know they missed them over the years.

As for focusing on building the GP/AGC relationship - I agree that this should be the goal if GP and AGC reunite. But there's that gap of all the years in between when they last saw each other and the present time. I can see where old cards, etc. can help to bridge that gap. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would be heartwarming for an AGC to know that their GPs had been thinking about them all those years and hasn't just suddenly "materialized" in their lives now.

Memory boxes that contain lies against the parents that harm parent-child relationships should be derided.

Only a narcissist would include and admit to sending along content, such as a lying letter against the GCs own parents in a 'memory box' that intended to harm the parent-child relationship.

It's their way of holding an impending, continuing threat against estranged ACs.

That's not a 'memory box', that's a 'narcissist box'.

Hmmm... Lots of good and interesting points, but lots of bickering, too. Hope everyone can chill after this.

About mediation - IM O, it can be a good alternative to court. But when parents refuse to go, I think it's often b/c they have nothing to gain but, perhaps, something to lose. Basically, as has been said before, the parents have the authority over who their child spends time with. If, say, they don't want their kids to spend time w/ the GPs and the GPs want to see them once a month, yes, they can compromise at every other month. However, that means the parents will have forfeited some of their authority (that's what I meant by "something to lose"), while the GPs will have an authority they didn't have before - a say in what the GC do w/ their time. IOWs, the GPs will have gained something, while the parents have lost something. It may seem that both the gain and the loss are very small here. But I imagine some parents still resent the idea. In fact, they may feel they stand more of a chance to win in court than to get anything out of mediation. IDK for sure, just ruminating...

You're welcome, Nonnie.

No worries Summerlove, I will get over it x

I’m sorry that you’re being made to feel uncomfortable lostchild

Well I'm game if you are.

I dont think anyone cares any more smileless was just trying to bring it back to the topic being discussed and away from semantics...

Oh the post made this afternoon at 4.30. Muddies the waters a bit to bring it into our 'conversation' when I haven't mentioned it don't you think.

I've been avoiding you Smileless, because you make me uncomfortable, but OK.

I know you didnt but the Christmas statement was what started this line of....... "conversation"???

I never said it did, you're confusing me with another poster sigh

Ok. Some people ignore what a court has ordered.... some people are not risk adverse! (Not that there is risk to anyone in your non comparable example of JOINT resident parents, not a court order upon a resident parent for visitation with someone who is not!)

Still does not mean that if visitation occurs at Christmas time it means the court thought the parents are dodgy.. that is not what that process asesses

Of course they have the right to end their relationships with family Summerlove but not necessarily the right to end their children's relationship with their GP's.

I didn't say the court order doesn't still exist notanan, the court order remains it is the agreeing parties who make the alterations. It was you who said alterations couldn't be made.

But look, we can agree on something sigh.

EP EGP

I said that if adult GC contact an EP it should be an opportunity for the GP and thd AGC to get to know each other

Not used as a chance to demonstrate how much they fought the parents!

Going to court to show you fought is not a positive message either way.

Who said you were the problem LostChild? I didn't. You expressed your reaction to my posts and I have expressed my reaction to yours.

It is anti GP's when GP's who choose to use the courts to maintain their relationship are accused of doing so for their own selfish reasons. Even making memory boxes has been derided on this thread for goodness sake.

"who" not why

Of course they're making an alteration. If both parties agree to change the court order they are agreeing to altering it.

The court order still exists unless the court says otherwise. It is unaltered. The only way to alter the actual order is to go back to court

They are agreeing to ignore it. Which they can fairly confidently do as they are 50:50 so why is going to dob themselves in????

sigh

I respect the right of GP's who do go to court to do so.
Then why not respect that,while you don’t agree with /think their reasons are valid or based in reality, that people have the right to end relationships with “family”.

Of course they're making an alteration. If both parties agree to change the court order they are agreeing to altering it.

Yes, I say I am hurt by your behaviour but, somehow it is me that is the problem.

Younger generation talking about protecting children from damaging legal processes, the reactions of their own parents if it's the parents who are abusive and pointing out that GP should consider that, but somehow that is anti GP instead of pro children.

It was you who made that point notanan by saying that people cannot make alterations to court orders

Even in your example, they are not making an "alteration" to it they are both agreeing to ignore it and the courts do not spy on everyone so...

Where there is a dominant and submissive party to a court order it is totally different to swapping a 50:50 arrangement. And the submissive party to the order are at risk if they dont present the child to court ordered hand over.

I don't think "court orders = a happy ending" either which is why we didn't go to court but I respect the right of GP's who do go to court to do so.