Child arrangement court order

"*assuming that the parents are not dangerous people to their children"

But even if they were court ordered contact doesnt remedy that in any way. It just ADDS a layer of trauma

notanan, I don’t disagree, but for the sake of a “two sided” argument, I wanted to put it in the best possible light. I didn’t want my thought shut down with “but what if the parents are horrible”

Given that there are horrible people in every generstion, it is fair to say AT LEAST 50% of parents/grandparents who have been cut off, have been cut off for good reason. These are the most likely to go to court because toxic people care about winning. They care about looking good to others. These are the people who cause untold damage to their children then shout THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO CUT OFF A PARENT. They will support any parent who has been cut off without any concern or care that they could be talking to an abusive person. They will encourage absolute bad behaviour and and send good, hurting desperate parents down the wrong path. They are here, they are everywhere you go, hiding in plain sight, pretending they are the real victim to get attention. They love attention. People who have lost their children through absolutely no fault of their own need to call them out on that nonsense because if you don't, you are picking the wrong side. Because it shouldn't be estranged versus estrangers, it should be genuine victims against perpetrators.

Having read the whole thread it is clear that some have direct experience and feel strongly about it. I don't have such experience and cannot imagine how adults could behave in this way. Surely if everyone has the interest of the children at heart it would never come to this? If 50% are horrible GPs does that mean the other 50% are horrible parents?

I understood that before going to court both 'sides' were required to go for mediation. Wouldn't that stop most going to court? If they did would the mediator have to give their opinion of the situation to the court? I would have thought the mediator would soon work out which party was reasonable and which was not.

I still maintain most people are not as bad as the examples cited, maybe its just because I don't know people like that.

Nonnie,
Why mediation doesn't work?

Whether the parents or the gp are the unreasonable ones - it doesn't matter in this case.

Before somebody decides to sue another, both parties have tried to talk, say no to the request and maybe explain reasons why it does work, maybe even compromise (you want 2x a week, I give you 1x visit a week, for example) but it is not accepted

When parents say no and grandparents refuse to accept the no and keep pushing for what they want, communication is already broken down to the point that the parents will dig their heels the more the gp push. It is psychology 101.

So when mediation is held, it is seen as grandparents trying to force the parent's hand using the law and again not respecting their no. As adults, it does not sit well on the parents.

So no, mediation may not work at all, even if the mediator thinks gp were an important part of the gc's live.
Mediator is only an intermediary dealing with a hostile situation, no a magician that solves a conflict that has been going on for a long time

why it does work,

Apologies - why it does not work

Even if the reasons given to deny contact are valid, the gp are unable to see them as valid or disregarded as lies, minimize them and say they are exaggerations.
This case is relevant in the case of unsafe and dangerous behaviour

Hithther I am sorry you have been so hurt it must be hard. I am not in this situation but it is clear that you must have gone through a very hard time.

Such a shame when the parents won't accept compromise. ""When the parents say no" but you give no reason why they should. What about when the GP says no?

Of course if it goes to mediation the parent won't be happy, I can understand that but it may be that the mediator can make them see they are being unreasonable/petty and using their spite to stop the children seeing a much loved GP.

*Even if the reasons given to deny contact are valid, the gp are unable to see them as valid or disregarded as lies, minimize them and say they are exaggerations.
This case is relevant in the case of unsafe and dangerous behaviour" could equally apply the other way round!

There are two ways to look at all these things and I am suggesting the other way.

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.

Pity gp cannot compromise.

Did I say i truly hate the autocorrect feature?

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.

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.

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.

Well that is what court ordered contact is!

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

No coercion or forcing involved.

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

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"

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.

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!

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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