Hope For Estranged Grandparents

This thread has been a farce, a real farce of arguing at cross purposes. Not saying I'm innocent of that.

It didn't start that way, it deteriorated.

I now realise that dynamic will never change here. Its constant. Its a shame.

Yes I've seen other things in the threads I've read, that's not my problem though. I don't understand but it makes no difference to me really.

Maybe it should matter to you though. Maybe it would help you move forward.

You often say that Starblaze "that for the most part estranged children just aren't wanted here" and it simply isn't true.

It's what is said that is important, whether it's said by an EAC, EP or EGP, if someone finds it upsetting, unpleasant or just rude, it's the language that is used that is sometimes 'not wanted', not the person using the language.

"The enlightenment of past threads?". It was you posted, that you were reading past threads that had been recommended to you and that you were finding them enlightening, are you not finding them enlightening then?

It struck me as rather an odd thing to say when nothing else was added, as if it was intended to put people on edge, be a little wary of what they might have posted before.

It's happened before and even as recently as this month on June 6th @ 4.32 page 12 of the 'Perception Filter' thread, HolyHannah began re posting posts of mine to try to 'prove' that my story over the years has changed, when of course it hasn't.

It's an unpleasant experience and perhaps made me more aware of the possibility than other GN's. I think it was you who posted very recently about being 'once bitten twice shy' and it's quite true.

Wow.

If you remember Smileless I defended you on that particular scenario recently, or at least tried to give you a softer landing.

Not trying to prove anything really. I don't like people to judge me based on others opinions of me, I would extend that to anyone else.

We are in the estrangement threads, I have (unfortunately) been estranged for a very long time. I know where I am, I choose to reply to certain subjects. Some people ask me questions and sometimes I answer them patiently and sometimes I don't. If a thread subject comes up that I don't want to be asked about, I simply wouldn't share any of my situation on it in the first place.

Why would we bother to be on the estrangement threads at all if not for occasionally needing support to heal or to work out how we can potentially fix those past issues. That may mean reconsiliation and forgiveness or it may mean letting that relationship go but growing as a person.

The enlightenment of past threads?

Not a lot has changed around here for a long time. The same old opinions, the same old arguments the same old formula between estranged parents and estranged children.
For the most part,estranged children just aren't wanted here (see my recent comment on the subject).

Its a shame.

I agree with both the above posts. It is also possible that some come on here and 'embellish' their stories to make a point which is actually not relevant to the OPs post.

A good post Chewbacca, I thought I might have come across as slightly paranoid in my post @ 11.18 but you make a very good point.

Not everyone who posts on these particular threads is trying to help. There are wolves in sheep's clothing and some are not as easy to spot as others.

think you extrapolate too much. Is it really fair to dissect this in public?

This is a salient point. Whilst some posters are happy to spill their guts with every excruciatingly lurid detail on an open and public platform; others are more circumspect. And I've often pondered on whether some posters derive some kind of sado masochistic pleasure in trying to force posters to constantly revist painful periods in their lives and reveal ever more personal detail. Contributors to these kind of threads need to be mindful that not everyone on here is trying to help you; some of them have mental instabilities of their own that prevent them from being supportive to others.

Aaah that's interesting Nonnie. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about psychology but did cover it among other things, when I did my degree in Social Sciences.

It's a fascinating subject isn't it.

Motherofdragons Fri 26-Jun-20 01:15:22 yet again, no one said that. If you break a court order the court has the right to sentence you.

Smile confabulation is a great word, for those unfamiliar:

Image result for definition of confabulation in psychology
Confabulation is a symptom of various memory disorders in which made-up stories fill in any gaps in memory. ... Someone with confabulation has memory loss that affects their higher reasoning. They subconsciously create stories as a way to conceal their memory loss. This was something I was discussing with a psychology student a week or two ago.

Starblaze Fri 26-Jun-20 11:03:08 I think it would depend upon the situation and that it should be the decision of the court.

Starblaze Fri 26-Jun-20 11:10:31 I think you extrapolate too much. Is it really fair to dissect this in public? Far too personal to me. I really don't want to know such detail. It would be helpful to all imo to keep it general.

Not paranoid smileless realistic!

MoD "Can you believe I’m having to argue against traumatising children. And what’s worse, there are actually people on the other side of that argument."

That is not true. I have asked you several times to prove these allegations and you have failed. Is this what 'gaslighting' is? I'm not sure but I think it is about people saying untrue things about others to blacken their character. If you actually believe what you say you should show us where a poster said that. If you can't the decent thing would be to retract.

Smileless2012 Thu 25-Jun-20 22:41:11 good luck with that, MoD has never answered any of my questions.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 23:11:40 so says the one who insisted others provide verification. Says it all, sounds rather like a toddler I know who wants something to be so even when the evidence proves it is not.

Ironflower Thu 25-Jun-20 23:47:29 I am really surprised that you blame the person who is NOT in prison. How can that be? If a parent is in prison they have committed a crime and ergo damaged their child.

Motherofdragons Fri 26-Jun-20 00:17:49 yet again I need to explain to you that courts do not impose custodial sentences lightly. The perpetrator will have done something really awful for that to happen. To suggest condoning that is irresponsible.

Motherofdragons Fri 26-Jun-20 00:36:51 probably wise to quit when you can't substantiate your arguments.

Ironflower Fri 26-Jun-20 00:38:58 and if people were perfect we wouldn't need the courts. Do you have a better solution?

I'm just wondering Starblaze why you're asking me questions which, I may be wrong, I suspect you already know the answers too.

You say you've been reading old posts (threads) on this current journey of enlightenment you're on, if so you'll have come across posts I've already made on this particular subject.

I would hate to think that you are asking me questions you already know the answers too in an effort to discredit, embarrass or humiliate me, because you're hoping you can trip me up, and come back with 'well on such and such a date at such and such a time you said ........'

I know that might sound a little paranoid but others have tried it in the past.

HolyHannah Thu 25-Jun-20 19:05:40 I think you will find in the UK that the law has been updated frequently regarding children. Smile posted a timeline on this thread which explains it all. This law is very current and is used in practice, it is about what arrangements are right for the children, not the adults.

HolyHannah Thu 25-Jun-20 19:37:56 interesting but no one knows or, if they do, they haven't verified their posts so cannot be taken as true.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 19:50:00 You have defined 'scaremongering' as "Scaremongering is defined as the spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours." so why accuse people of it when no one has done so. All they have done is state the law.

"I mean given the hurdles involved in even getting a case into court, never mind actually being granted a court order, why the determination to “prove” that a parent can be sent to prison for not complying with the order? I mean, can you even obtain permission to apply for a contact order in the first place?" Let me help you out again

1 yes you "can you even obtain permission to apply for a contact order in the first place?"

2 It is necessary to prove it to those who say it is not the law. No need if people checked before posting thing they know nothing about.

Parents are punished for not abiding by a ruling of the court. Simply put if you break a court order you are in contempt of court and that is between you and the court. Let me know if you need more detail and I will try to help

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 20:02:43 I disagree, the courts make their decisions based on what is best for the children. If they believe the parent has made a wrong decision they will overrule it. Simple

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 20:02:43 I am interested in why you think only the ones objecting to gps seeing the gc are the only ones with experience. It may well be that other simply do not make such things public.

Please provide verification of "any lawyer will tell you"? I had to verify my statement so it is right that you do so too.

Oh dear"So parents should be forced, using the threat of prison, to co-operate with a person who has no rights to their child?" I will explain again. The person would have a'right' if the court had given them one.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 21:06:20 imo yet another one breaking the rules but I won't report it because it is clearly untrue you do give a or you wouldn't keep repeating the same old same old without any evidence.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 21:24:19 technically you are correct. If I parent gets send to prison it will be for contempt of court.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 21:48:45 I think that is an interesting point but would suggest that any GP reading this thread will be encouraged as the OP intended. They will be at liberty to read through the posts and see which are 'hysterical' rantings and which quote facts.

Starblaze Thu 25-Jun-20 22:17:33 do you not realise we are doing exactly the same as you because "thats SIC just the sort of people " you are? I don't understand why so many posts talk as if the same doesn't apply to both viewpoints. It feels very blinkered to me

I just wondered Smileless because your son told you he wouldn't stop you from seeing his son on a few occasions, but it appears that is because you were thinking of going to court. If you had that conversation before estrangement. I don't think estrangement could possibly be that much of a surprise. Maybe there is something you have missed that could unravel it all for you and help you understand it better.

Lots to do today, won't have another chance to pop in and chat. Enjoy your day all.

Do you believe refusing contact with a grandchild is a serious crime that deserves a prison sentence Nonnnie?

I have the same hope Nonnie that a P wouldn't behave so badly to warrant a custodial sentence.

Knowledge is power. Before attempting to take someone to court or putting yourself in a position where you could be taken to court, you should get as much information as you possibly, from someone whose qualified to give it.

Just because something hasn't yet, doesn't it mean it wouldn't or couldn't.

I have no idea what the take up rate for mediation is in this matter or how successful it has been but, it's without a doubt the first step in these situations can avoid a lot of problems in the future if it's successful.

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 18:20:52 No, wrong. Why can't you answer questions?

Child more important than parent obviously

Motherofdragons Thu 25-Jun-20 18:29:13 let me help you out again with another dictionary definition:

seem
/siːm/
Learn to pronounce
verb
1.
give the impression of being something or having a particular quality.
"Dawn seemed annoyed"
Similar:
appear
appear to be
give the impression of being
look
look like
look as though one is
look to be
have the look of
show signs of
come across as
strike someone as
sound

I hope that helps clarify the quoted post

"
I am not disagreeing for the sake of argument, or to win the argument" really then why won't you acknowledge the facts? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Smile have you considered how badly the parent would have behaved to be sent to prison? I think it would be something quite terrible. Contempt of court is a serious matter as it is not about the parties concerned but about disobeying the rule of law. I think if the crime is so bad that it needs a custodial sentence then it probably is correct but I hope no parent would ever do that.

We looked into it but decided it wouldn't be the right thing to do for him, our ES or us. We wrote and told our ES it was something we would never do.

Did you ever think about taking your son to court to see your grandson Smileless?

That's great Starblaze

I am Smileless thank you

So you keep saying Starblaze I hope you continue to both enjoy them and find them enlightening.

Ooo I must remember to keep reading the old posts (threads) I was recommended. Really very enlightening!

I'm currently reading the second book of Hilary Mantel's trilogy about Thomas Cromwell, and read this the other day.

"What is the nature of the border between truth and lies? It is permeable and blurred because it is planted thick with rumour, confabulation, misunderstandings and twisted tales. Truth can break down the gates, truth can howl in the street; unless truth is pleasing and easy to like, she is condemned to stay whimpering at the back door"

You clearly don't find my truth pleasing or easy to like HolyHannah but you wont condemn it to "stay whimpering at the back door" I shall present the truth of my estrangement loud and clear.

Have you managed to get any legal advice Ironflower? I don't know how old your are children but I seem to remember you saying your P's have never had unsupervised contact.

If they were to get a contact order, and it's a big if as you were sexually and emotionally abused, it may be that supervised contact could be insisted on as the children haven't been left with them before.

Thank you for providing that information and the link. No wonder you're so anxious. I had no idea that in other countries P's have received a custodial sentence for refusing to comply with a GP's visitation order.

I hoped that when you realised that the emails/letters you've seen AC send their parents prior to estranging them, are not representative of all emails/letters AC send, that would perhaps broaden your horizons HolyHannah but I hadn't expected you to find that information enlightening.

Smileless -- You said to MoD -- "You posted that I dug myself into a hole on the perception thread, having made that claim I would like to see you substantiate it. Tomorrow will be fine."

To explain... MotherofDragons clarified that she meant/was referencing the "No Contact" thread by replying to Me, "Yes, how could I forget! I’ve been so distracted over on this thread. Thanks for the reminder!"

After I said, "I think you might be thinking of the "No Contact" thread... That's where the really enlightening stuff is."

Today/tomorrow/yesterday the truth wherever/whenever 'it' is spoken, IT is still the truth right? Or does your truth/reality fluctuate?