Hope For Estranged Grandparents

Starblaze Mon 22-Jun-20 11:49:28 I don't think it was 'dropped' it has not been discussed at all. You cannot assume the other parent is always around, we know that is not always the case.

Motherofdragons Mon 22-Jun-20 12:01:42 perhaps you are a little out of date with the law? The courts actually are there to 'referee' regarding CAOs. They are not there to rubber stamp parents' decisions. The last few years have brought major changes.

I'm confused because now you are using the word you said wasn't helpful "Yes, absolutely. But the standard of reasonableness is difficult to determine. The court is an impartial forum and is not there to decide which party is being reasonable and which party is not being reasonable. It is there to act within the parameters of the law and apply it accordingly. The legislation is not concerned with whether or not the parents acting unreasonably in the grandparents’ view. By the time the case gets to court, there is more often than not unreasonable behaviour on both sides. A successful outcome does not render the parents as unreasonable in the action. An unsuccessful outcome does not render the grandparents as unreasonable in the action." The court is unconcerned about what is 'more often' happening, it is only concerned about the individual case and, as has been said many time, each case is different.

"It’s about winning" NO, NO & NO! I'm sorry you see it like that, it seems to be a competition in your eyes. It should be about the children! If any party sees the process about winning then I think they are wrong, their interests are selfish and hopefully that will come across to the court.

Smileless2012 Mon 22-Jun-20 12:05:02 I would add that mediation is initially offered to each party separately before it is done together. One has to ask why a parent would refuse mediation without the GPs being there if they have nothing to hide.

Motherofdragons Mon 22-Jun-20 12:06:46 nothing to add if you don't understand. I don't think I can make it any simpler for you.

Of course the OP hasn't given details, they would be in contempt of court if they did! Obviously.

Ironflower Mon 22-Jun-20 22:27:35 we don't have that in the UK so difficult for us to understand.

Personally Nonnie I think the covert, passive aggressive, deliberately baiting stuff, and trying to later deny it is much more disgusting than thinking something about someone and outright saying it to their face.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ironfliwer what an awful situation for you. Get some legal advice if you can and keep a dated diary of events/comments etc in case you need it in the future.

Ironflower I was never able to get evidence either, it would always be "I don't like discussing this in type, let's meet up". Then a big abuse and gaslighting spectacular. At least I had the evidence for myself because I literally kept a "stuff mum said" diary towards the end so I could keep track as she was literally driving me crazy. Every situation I would spend so much time mulling it over afterwards wondering what I could have said and done to make her not behave that way. I was so kind and patient with her. I wish I could slap younger me sometimes. The problem was her. I cannot fix her and I cannot be someone she didn't want to alienate emotionally.

Rambling.

If you don't have a diary, it might help to keep one. Even if it is just to get events firm in your mind if you are ever questioned in a horribly anxious environment like them taking you to court.

I agree with Motherofdragon's getting legal advice is something you should do. It may help to put your mind at rest and would at least give you the information you need.

Its no contact for us. They are just so hateful and nasty. Told me I deserve it because I took the grandkids away from them. On my oldests 6th birthday they pushed him away because they were mad at my hubby (for a stupid reason).

Yes I'm in Australia. My in-laws have offered their 100% support in fighting if we go to court. Again though, if the court only accepts 'proof' then I'm in trouble as they don't admit to much in messages. I've also seen a judge refuse to accept messages as proof.

Ironflower I would try not to worry yourself too much. Many children have heard such threats from their parents; whether they follow through with them or not is another matter.

You are in Australia, is that right? If it is something that is worrying you, it might be worthwhile making an appointment with a lawyer to find out what the law is there regarding grandparent’s rights and whether or not the lawyer thinks that your parents would meet the criteria under the legislation to apply for any such order.

It will either put your mind at rest or provide you with the information you need to take steps to limit the risk of you being sued.

Are you going to stick with limited contact; enough to stave them off, ironflower?
It must be awful to not be quite sure what they'll do.

Oh no Ironflower. So sorry, I didn't know

Raises Hand I'm at risk of being sued for grandparent rights. It is relevant for me. While my parents haven't had unsupervised contact in years, they have had contact. My mum showed up here only a couple weeks ago. The last time we went to their house was september. My parents have also threatened it, that they have rights. My only lifeline is that my parents have had bad legal trouble before that costed them a lot. I hope its enough for them to not sue

True

It sounds scary, but leaving yourself vulnerable to a case is not the same as the grandparent actually having a case.

MotherofDragons

I got the shivers from that because that didn't used to be true.

Starblaze Absolutely. If you make the decision to go no contact with your abusive parent, and there is an established relationship between your child and their grandparent, then you have left yourself vulnerable to a grandparent’s rights case.

That would certainly take away any possibility of a court case.

MotherofDragons you have really helped my understanding on the subject.

Lots of helpful info I can pass on to other children of abuse. No. 1 being the obvious, abusive parents become abusive grandparents. It may be prudent to cut them off before you have children.

I agree Smileless.

Thank you for your feedback Motherofdragons. I think for me at least, the words reasonable and unreasonable have muddied the waters and resulted in some confusion, as they are so open to interpretation.

Sorry, is it an invasion of privacy to ask what caused your estrangement? Obviously will understand if you’d rather not reply.

Motherofdragons Sun 21-Jun-20 15:37:40 so sorry you didn't understand that 'reasonable' was a simple way of not listing all the details you have just said. If the parents had been 'reasonable' the court would not have made the Order. Simple really, no need to make it complicated

Different now, unreasonable parents cannot stop their children from seeing loving GPs who have played a part in their lives. Read the OP

Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

What part of the courts are not concerned with whether a parent is being unreasonable or not do you not seem to understand?

I have read the OP. It gives no details about the case whatsoever. We don’t know on what basis the OP was awarded contact. What’s your point?

For me, the focus shouldn't have been more on abuse. It goes without saying that abuse is a serious issue, but this thread was started by a GP who successfully got a contact order to see her GC, and as she has stated, abuse was not an issue.

The focus should be on what's in the best interest of the child. It may be that it is not in the child's best interest to maintain their relationship with their GP, then again it may be that it is. In worthitall's case clearly the court decided it was in her GC's best interests to be able to continue their relationship with their GM, or she wouldn't have been given a contact order.

Parents can avoid the emotional and financial stress of a court case if they allow their children's established relationship with their GP's to continue.

As I posted earlier on this thread, this is not just a decision taken by GP's it's a decision taken by parents too. Parents decide to block the relationship their children had with their GP's, so GP's decide whether or not to pursue the legal route.

The initial stage is mediation, and that does not require hours and hours of filling out paperwork. The GP's engage the services of a suitable mediator who then contacts the parents asking if they are prepared to engage. I've seen numerous GP's say that they have been prepared to cover the full cost of mediation.

If they are prepared to do so, a time and date to suit all involved is set and the meeting takes place. If either 'side' feels particularly anxious about the meeting, the parents can be in one room and the GP's in another, and the mediator will move between the two rooms to avoid face to face conflict.

I appreciate that it's an additional burden on family time for contact to be scheduled; the more co-operation there is from both parties, the easier that will be.

Seeing the contact given to GP's as being forced, presumably is regarding the parents being forced into allowing their children to see their GP's. In those circumstances it's a pity that the parents have to be forced into putting their children's best interests, before what they perceive to be their own.

So much of what is discussed on the subject of estrangement cuts both ways. The courts inability to spot an abuser for example can result in not recognising the abusive potential of a GP or that the parents of that GP's GC are themselves abusive.

Even when a contact order is given, GP's can still be thwarted. Parents can move and their new address is not known. They can make endless excuses about why the child isn't available for a pre arranged visit for example, the child is unwell. They can go back to the court, saying that the stress on themselves and the child is such, that contact is having a detrimental on family life which is negatively impacting on the child.

That can and does happen and can result in the court withdrawing the contact order from the GP.

I'm getting confused Motherofdragons because what you're posting I am also posting. I have not said that the parents unreasonableness alone would be a deciding factor

No, but you are saying that it is a factor. The problem is that the parents will ultimately believe that they are behaving reasonably and the grandparents will believe that those parents are behaving unreasonably. The court is not there to referee! The court will assume that the parents are acting in the best interests of their children, as per their responsibilities. Essentially, the grandparents do not have any rights, or responsibilities, they are not the other parent. So the parent doesn’t have to behave reasonably when it comes to contact. That is a moral issue. They have no legal obligation to consider the grandparents whatsoever. This is why it is so important for the grandparent to focus on satisfying the burden proof which will win them the case - that the withdrawal of contact is more detrimental to the child’s wellbeing than the totality of all other factors. Focusing on the percieved unreasonableness of the parent is a distraction. Ultimately, the burden of proving a fact rests on the person who asserts it. Thus, if the grandparent accuses the parent of being unreasonable, it is not the parent’s responsibility to prove the accusation false. It is incredibly difficult to establish that a parent is being unreasonable when it comes to their child when the person asserting it is not the other parent and has no rights to the child. So let’s stop focusing on the parents acting “unreasonably” as if that will add weight to the case - it won’t! There are more important proofs to satisfy.

I gave a comprehensive list of what the court will look at when considering a GP's case for contact. The court will not rule that the unreasonable withdrawal of GC from their parents is the a reason to grant contact, but it will take that into consideration

I read over your list and I do agree that that is what the court is indeed concerned with. But your list doesn’t say that the court is concerned with whether or not the parents are behaving reasonably. Those terms are subjective and the courts will not allow the case to get bogged down with he said/she said. It is not interested. It is only concerned with the best interests of the child and whether those interests are best served by continuing the relationship with the grandparent, not whether the parents are unreasonable for withdrawing contact in the first place.

My brother's entire career was as a family solicitor and he knows what family courts will take on board when making their final ruling, and one of those is whether or not the parents and/or the GP's are believed to be acting reasonably, and in the best interests of the children

Yes, absolutely. But the standard of reasonableness is difficult to determine. The court is an impartial forum and is not there to decide which party is being reasonable and which party is not being reasonable. It is there to act within the parameters of the law and apply it accordingly. The legislation is not concerned with whether or not the parents acting unreasonably in the grandparents’ view. By the time the case gets to court, there is more often than not unreasonable behaviour on both sides. A successful outcome does not render the parents as unreasonable in the action. An unsuccessful outcome does not render the grandparents as unreasonable in the action.

You've posted that the deciding factor is whether or not contact is in the best interests of the child and that is what I have been saying throughout this thread

Yes, you have been saying that. But you also said:

If the court rules that denying that relationship to the children is an unreasonable act, they have the power and the authority to grant a contact order to the GP's

The court won’t rule that denying the relationship is an unreasonable act because that is not what it is being asked to rule on. That is all I wanted to clear up. It is slipping into the territory of who is right and who is wrong. And when we start getting into that, the best interest of the grandchildren are never at the forefront of anyone’s mind. It’s about winning.

Can I just say Smileless that it is clear you are knowledgeable on this subject, which is something that I find incredibly important when it comes to discussing legal matters online, especially when there is no much misinformation out there already, as you never know who could be reading or what their circumstances might be.

Oh I think that subject was dropped because when grandparents lose access due to divorce or bereavement rather than relationship directly between parents and grandparents breaking down, it's a different issue entirely and much less complex. Cultural access would fall within that.

The cultural aspect would not apply in relationship breakdowns between parent and grandparent because the parent would still be available.

Starblaze Mon 22-Jun-20 11:22:23 I think that is because anyone who has applied to a court or is thinking about it would not risk being identified on here. They would also want to avoid the flack which has been thrown. I know from PMs that they are watching

Point 2 equally applies to the applicants which implies they would think very carefully about it before doing so,

I note that still no one has responded to my question about what should happen with different cultures so can only assume you think that access should be allowed.

Despite several requests for the accusers to explain which part of UK law I don't understand, they haven't.

Now I will go out into the garden and enjoy the sun.