Child arrangement court order

These all seem extreme to me and I would not dream of doing these things and nor would the majority of GPs - GPs in general and those who post here on Gransnet.

However, reading some of the threads on Mumsnet, there do seem to be a small minority where this does apply.

I suspect that, in these instances, there has been a poor relationship prior to the arrival of the children.

These problems are very hard to resolve and very sad for those involved, but using the courts is not the way to go to achieve the best outcomes for the children.

The law makes it extremely difficult for unwanted GP's to see their GC which enables this abuse of GP's.

The childrens courts are not there to cater to adults. They are there for children. The less court orders a child is tied to the better it is for the child.

There's no need for court orders if there's a spirit of co operation and the desire to do the right thing. If the AC of non abusive GC don't want to see their parents, there's no need to prevent that GP/GC relationship

If there is no civil relationship between the adults. There simply will not be cooperative care of the child. You cannot isolate the child/grandparent relationship it cannot exist in any meaningful or healthy way if the primary carers/adults with whom the child has primary attatchment to, are out of the equation

Someone who has no communicatiom with the resident parent cannot give good consistant care to the child no matter how sensible they usually are. The childs care would be so disjointed and problematic.

If communication hasnt fully broken down prior to court, court would put the nail in that coffin forever.

Good care can only be achieved if there is some level of communication with the primary carer.

Grandparents with sole care are different BTW. Im talking about GPs who think they can pluck the child away one weekend a month/quarter and the childs time with them furing that time is unrelated to the childs usual care/routine.

If the child is coming down with something (not serious enough to warrant medical evidence, but miserable enough to not want to visit). Or a girl starts her first period and wants to sleep in her own bed.....parents cannot cancel court ordered visits!

That is not how court orders work. There are serious consequences if the child isnt dropped off.

The child gets a sense of security from having a consistant primary carer who ultimately calls the shots even if at a friends house or otherwise out of sight.... unless there is a court order!

A court order specifies days, times and length of visits

It is not a command given by the judge that forces the parents to negotiate with the gp about gc visits and keep the lines of communication open.

In a case of disagreement between parent and grand parents, a grandparent who goes to court to ensure they “get their time”, is unlikely someone who would then willingly give up that time so a child could do an activity or go to a party.

Re: Monday after hand over, you see that even in non contentious divorces.

Grandparents who claim to love their grandchild shouldn’t ever want to disrupt or make their loved ones lives harder. That’s putting their wants over a child’s needs.

I am having great difficulty with some of the terrible things posters are saying about GPs. Are they all real? Is there another side to this? Every negative thing about GPs would also apply to an estranged partner so what's the difference? If a partner has to go to court to get access to their children that would only be in a contact centre if the parent were likely to cause damage to the child.

What about the damage done to a child who has a loving relationship with a GP, knows their parent tells lies, and is suddenly deprived of that GP? Isn't that harmful? Does no one ever think the parent could be at fault and doing damage to the child?

If there is no other parent is it right to cut children off from one whole side of their family? What if that family is from a different culture, surely the child should be allowed to know about the other side of its family?

Parents are in a position to do far more harm, some are simply spiteful.

Its not about grandparents Vs parents

The grandparents dont need to be "terrible" but court ordered visits still are!

In order for court ordered visits to be in place mediation first has to fail! Which by default means that the visit will involve someone unable to communicate or negotiate with the primary carer ..

Whatever you may think of the primary carer, they are the childs normal/home/security/routine. And that matters to the child.

What if ALL extended family went to court? Should the child be ordered to give 8 people a month their "go"?

Following the thought from nonanan2: or anybody who formed (or claimed to ) have a bond with the baby?
For example, nanny, babysitter, friend of the family?

Every negative thing about GPs would also apply to an estranged partner so what's the difference?

The difference is one is a parent.

The other is extended family.

So many strong feelings about this sensitive issue!

My heart goes out to you, Unhappy! In fact, my heart goes out to everyone here, whether parent, GP or GC who has been hurt by estrangement or by the painful events that led up to that estrangement.

I am always especially astounded by the cases where parents CO a GP who has been a major part of their child's life (unless GP became abusive, etc). And I'm not surprised that the children in these instances often grow up very angry about this.

Kaimegan, as much as I sympathize w/ your situation, I can't imagine a court ever taking a parent away from their child and imprisoning them for 5 years just b/c they didn't let the child see a GP. As harsh as it might be to separate a child from a GP. IMO, in most cases, it would be even worse to separate them from a parent, especially if it's simply b/c the parent exercised their parental authority.

Granted, some of the examples of GP offenses given here are extreme, as has been said. But others are not, IMO. Ive seen cases on MN where GPs ignored rules/information regarding a child's allergy, for instance, b/c they "never heard of it" or "don't believe" the child has it and just think the parents are saying this as a way of exercising "control." Ive also seen complaints about GPs not complying w/ car safety rules, etc. While I don't think this behavior is common, it is not "extreme." B/c the GPs who commit these offenses are not always bizarre people - often they are well-intentioned but erroneously think they are right and "know better" than the parents since they have more experience, etc. Not saying that any of the estranged GPs here are guilty of any of these transgressions, just that it does happen.

EMMF, IDK, but I imagine some men go along w/ their XWs insistence that the kids not see the PGPs b/c the XW threatens to take them back to court and get the custody/visitation arrangements changed if they don't. Or b/c she convinces the court to include this "rule" in the custody/visitation arrangements (if that's possible). Granted, of course, in some cases, the man may actually agree w/ XW about this issue, but not in your case, I hope.

As for waiting for the dust to settle - I get the point that legally, it may be detrimental to a GPs cause not to be able to show that they tried to see the GC. But where family relations are concerned, it can be detrimental if they are seen (by the parents) as pushing too hard. Unfortunately, Ive noticed, that what works legally often does not work socially and vice versa. Since I'm not in this situation, IDK, but I guess one has to choose which way they want to go.

Unhappy, it sounds as if you have been very involved w/ your GS. Ans as I said above, I have trouble understanding how parents can totally tear a child away from someone they have such a close relationship with. I am deeply sorry this happened to you and your GS.

It seems as if your son and DIL were not fully satisfied w/ your relationship w/ the GC for whatever reason (NOT saying they're right). Unless that was a total act on their part (you did say they were lying). Obviously, the judge believed them, and, of course, as others have pointed out, the burden of proof is on the GP. Again, I am so sorry you had to go through this.

Glad, though, that you have a good relationship w/ DD (dear daughter) and your GD. Hope you can focus on enjoying that.... Peace...

notanan "Which by default means that the visit will involve someone unable to communicate or negotiate with the primary carer .." No, it doesn't, it could also mean the parent refuses mediation!

"Its not about grandparents Vs parents" has it occurred to you that it could be parent vs grandparent? Is it in the interest of a child who has a good relationship with the GP to suddenly have that relationship stopped because the parent has a non-child issue (rightly or wrongly) with the GP? I don't think that is good for the child or the parent. If a child is brought up to think it is OK for their parent to drop one side of the family might they not do the same when they are adults?

Summer perhaps I put it badly but I meant that all the things about not doing what is best for a child, allergies etc, car seats, could also apply to a parent so no more relevant to a GP than to a parent. If anyone does not have the child's interest at heart they are, imo, in the wrong whoever it may be.

notanan "Which by default means that the visit will involve someone unable to communicate or negotiate with the primary carer .." No, it doesn't, it could also mean the parent refuses mediation

Oh FGC the consequences for the child is the same either way! Or dont you care about that?

FGS

Court ordered contact arrangements traumatise and disadvantage children and their primary family unit.

Regardless of which of the adults you think is most to blame!

notanan2 Tue 20-Aug-19 16:26:25 No need to be so rude!

Yes, but what if the child has a good relationship with the GP? Is it worth going to court for the child's sake? Let's face it, if the parent makes a fuss and tries to alienate the child it is the parent at fault. Why does the child even need to know the parent has been to court? Why does the parent want to make it difficult for the child? Surely any good parent would abide by what the court said and not involve the child? No court would give such an order if there was evidence the GPs would harm the child. There are always 2 sides to these things and I can see both.

Why does the child even need to know the parent has been to court?

Are you kidding? You think kids wont pick up on the HUGE trauma to the family of being taken to court, even if the child doesnt know the details!

I dont think you understand the first thing about court ordered access! Of COURSE the child will know. It is nothing like normal visiting!

No court would give such an order if there was evidence the GPs would harm the child
The whole process harms the child regardless of who is granted the visits!

Unless the GP previously had PR or fostered the child(ren) the legal advice is almost always to not persue a court order.

Why? Because there is no happy ending. Yes, the GP may "win". But the child always loses.

I don't think we are getting anywhere notanan. It feels like you condemn all GPs and don't think a parent is ever at fault or that people can work together for the interests of the child.

I am sorry about whatever happened to make you feel so strongly. I don't see how further discussion will help so I will stop now and continue to see the best in people.

I dont think it is about which adult is at fault Nonnie..

... I think it is about the child...

My neighbour desperately wanted contact with her grandchildren.

She had the police visit and say they would arrest her if she contacted her son again, or anyone connected with him.

Her grandchildren were put into care less than 6 months later and are still in the care system 10 years later.

My friend is the only person who has kept contact with the grandchildren..

It doesn’t matter who is at fault. It doesn’t matter in the slightest. The courts are hesitant to interfere with the rights of the parents to make decisions for their children. It would undermine the very foundations of parental rights. Look at the Alfie Evans case and the outrage it caused. Courts will rarely override parental autonomy, unless the child’s welfare and safety are in jeopardy.

I am sorry about whatever happened to make you feel so strongly. I don't see how further discussion will help so I will stop now and continue to see the best in people.
As long as those people are grandparents trying to circumvent what parents think is best for their own children?