Hope For Estranged Grandparents

You are right but only to a certain extent MotherofDragons. Parents can be as unreasonable as they like where GP's have never met their GC, but they will not always be allowed to be unreasonable where an established relationship previously existed

But the granting of a court order is not based upon the parent’s unreasonableness Smileless. It is based upon the grandparent being able to prove to the court that the withdrawal of contact is more detrimental to the child’s wellbeing than the totality of all other factors. The parent’s unreasonableness is irrelevant and it is deflecting from what it is the court is actually interested in.

“parents can be as unreasonable as they like"; is there any wonder there are GP's having no other option but to try and get a contact order just to see their GC

I don’t understand why this is so shocking to hear. Parents are the decision makers when it comes to their minor children, even the unreasonable ones. Has it ever been any different?

OK Smileless

I don't focus on you at all Starblaze. We're posting on the same thread and if I wish to highlight your name, which is common practice on GN, ask you questions and comment on the questions you ask of other posters I will do.

We all care about children that's why we're having this discussion.

I think it's pretty obvious what is meant when the words reasonable and unreasonable are being used in this context.

For example parents who unreasonably withhold their children from the GP's ie has nothing to do with the children but is all about the parent.

Parents behaving reasonably ie coming to some arrangement with the GP's for contact and avoiding the legal process.

You are right but only to a certain extent MotherofDragons. Parents can be as unreasonable as they like where GP's have never met their GC, but they will not always be allowed to be unreasonable where an established relationship previously existed.

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.

"parents can be as unreasonable as they like"; is there any wonder there are GP's having no other option but to try and get a contact order just to see their GC.

I think everyone has their triggers Smileless and I actually have a very good one for that word which I have told you before but you may not remember.

I have no interest in poking sore spots in general. I really do prefer reasonable discussion.

I already said the bar had been set pretty low and wasn't by me, I'm not saying it as estranged children versus estranged parents, it's clearly individual and personal comments have been made by individuals.

I may not go around calling everyone out individually, most of the time I try to ignore the negative, so times I don't. I am certainly not defending it or egging it on.

I do notice you focus a lot on me and I wonder if you just have an ongoing personal problem with me despite my continued attempts to get along with you.

I make no secret of the fact that I can be a bit bitchy at times, usually justified. I'll always apologise if I am pulled up and I agree I was wrong, as you know.

Perhaps you could stop continuously highlighting my name, asking me questions, answering for people I am speaking too or otherwise making everything about me.

This post is about innocent children and the impact of the courts and other related issues. An issue that I care about and I'm completely sure caring about the potential impact of anything on children is never wrong. You also know I did not estrange until I knew it would not negatively impact my children.

If the parents were behaving in a reasonable way teh gps wouldn't get the order. Obvious to most people. Why does that need to be explained over and over again? What is the 'criteria' you refer to? Clarity would be most helpful

Nonnie the parents can be as unreasonable as they like, and if, for example, the grandparents have never met the grandchild, they won’t get leave to apply for a court order. It’s not about who is being reasonable and who is not.

The onus of proof is on the grandparent. The grandparent must be able to demonstrate to the court that they have an established relationship with the child beyond, for example, only seeing that child as an infant (unless they have been the primary carer for a period of time) or irregularly, or under parental supervision. Essentially, they must be able to prove that it is in the best interests of the child for them to remain in the child’s life. In reality if, for example, the relationship between mother and grandmother has broken down and is actually hostile then it wil be difficult for a grandparent to secure contact because the court will take into account the risk of the child suffering emotionally by being caught in the middle of an adult conflict. They don’t expect the mother to hide the conflict from the child, regardless of whether or not you think that is irresponsible parenting.

No, that is not the case, in law the parents have to do what is best for the children, no what they want. When the court sees that the parent is being unreasonable they can give a Court Order which makes the parent/s be reasonable. Fact

The court does not issue a court order on the basis of seeing that the parent is being unreasonable. They issue a court order when the grandparent can prove that not being in the child’s life is far more detrimental to the child’s wellbeing than the stress caused to the family of them remaining in the child’s life.

Now which bit of the law are you saying again that I don't understand?

This is why I am saying you don’t seem to understand. You are so focused on a court order being issued on “reasonableness” when, in fact, that is not what the court is interested in. The are interested in whether or not the grandparent can satisfy the burden of proof as required under the legislation.

My only posts on that page are at 18.10 and at 08.46, which was an apology to you if I had confused you as I was concerned I had not expressed myself very well.

Page 7 at 10:08 Madgran to HH

I'm so sorry Starblaze but I dont understand??

Do you mean Nonnie to HH Starblaze?

I'm going to put this is as kindly as I can. Do you seriously think that some of the comments on this thread alone, not to mention other estrangement threads don't impact negatively on EP's and EGP's?

I'm an EP and an EGP and have had seen plenty of comments that have impacted negatively on me and not always unintentionally.

If you don't want to see posts that may impact negatively on you even unintentionally, than maybe this isn't the place for you. It happens, it happens to us all Starblaze, it isn't just about you.

? Madgran

I missed your comnent Sparkling sorry. You speak a lot of sense there.

Page 7 at 10:08 Madgran to HH

I also have a husband with estranged parents so that one impacted me negatively too.

You seem to cling to some notion that I need to 'go to court' and have them tell me how wrong am I. Why would I take myself 'to court' to have them interfere when neither set of grand-parents could start legal proceedings?

Having read the entire thread I have to say that I see nothing that suggests that the points being made about process are being applied specifically to you in your individual circumstances or to the decisions that you personally have made in the light of your particular experiences and circumstances Holy Hanbah!

The comments throughout appear to be related to processes and also, yet again, an important need not to generalise in terms of parental decisions, GP decisions, parental motivations, GP motivations and court decisions!! If I missed any comment that has made a generalisation about what you or other posters who have estranged should personally do/not do or whether their personal decision is valid/ not valid then I apologise!

It wasn't asked 3 times Smileless it was a 3 part question in one comment which is still there for anyone who wants to check. It made it clear how I felt about the word being used to describe me.

What have I embeleshed exactly?

Smileless You are the one who used what Nonnie said to me in comparison, are you now saying they are not comparable?

If so why bring it up again when I've suggested moving past it several times

Nonnie -- "HolyHannah Sat 20-Jun-20 20:00:07 you can turn that on its head too. ACs who don't care about their parents are hurtful too."

Of course I don't care about my parents or their feelings. Why should I?

You seem to cling to some notion that I need to 'go to court' and have them tell me how wrong am I. Why would I take myself 'to court' to have them interfere when neither set of grand-parents could start legal proceedings?

I get it. You think I am 'wrong' just like my family does. Good news for me? There is no "higher-authority" that can force me to do what they want or what you believe is "reasonable".

Enjoy your Father's day celebrations Nonnie

In your opinion Nonnie's story has been embellished Starblaze and as someone who has an issue with embellishment, why do you continue to embellish your own?

She didn't tell you your experiences were affecting your thoughts and she did not refer to you as damaged. You repeatedly asked her if she viewed you in that way and she answered in an honest, understanding and sympathetic way.

You have said about yourself that you were being honest, so why was it wrong for her to be honest too?

If you "clearly" don't like being referred too as damaged, why on earth did you repeatedly ask someone if they see you that way?

I posted earlier that there's always a distinct possibility when asking a question, that you may not like the answer. That being the case, why did you ask that question not once, but three times?

This is becoming more and more ridiculous and if I were you, I'd let it go.

Before I go out to celebrate Fathers' Day I'll just repost this in case anyone would like to comment:

Imagine a couple from different cultures who split up. Would it be right that the parent who has the care of the child prevents the family from the other culture seeing the children because they come from a different culture? I don't think so, I think children should know their backgrounds wherever they come from.

Nope, didn't call you a liar Nonnie and I also tell stories of my childhood abuse experience here. If you would prefer I didn't refer to it as a story, that's fine. The events you talked of changed and do not match with how the situation should be handled by law. It sounds as though you have embeleshed it slightly from one telling to the next. Not a huge amount of shame in that. Would you like to. Clarify what actually happened, what the result was, what was said by the police and the parents? No need for names or times.

Very interesting that two posters (the same two who have accused me of not being truthful) have both said I don't know the law and I have asked both to tell me what it is I don't know. Hmm, despite repeated requests neither have answered. I wonder why that is?

I have a few questions regarding your post Summerlove.

The first is that you say "His parents then lost the plot and made him go to court to bring them back". How do you know that his parents lost the plot?

How did they exhibit this, if that was the case?

How do you know that his parents made him go to court?

Did the father tell you this himself?

You say the father had no interest in his children, giving what time he did have to his parents. Again, how do you know this?

How do you know that the GP's in this case "were upset that they couldn't have on demand time"?

If you know the answers because of what the father and the GP's have told you and from no other source then yes, I would agree that this is definitely a control issue, but not just about control.

I would also say it's about a father who doesn't care about his children.

Smileless2012 Sun 21-Jun-20 14:13:09 I think you are probably right. I cannot imagine a gp going to court unless they had a good reason. There has been talk about the cost, if the gp used a solicitor then the cost could be prohibitive with all the steps they have to go through even before getting to the court.

Starblaze Sun 21-Jun-20 14:00:28 we both know that is not what happened. You are 'embellishing'. You referred many times to what you had been through. You wrote that word and you asked me what I thought. It thought that anyone who had been through what you had been through would be affected. That happened once, not all the times that were claimed. If I had done that all the posts would have been deleted. Do not accuse me of embellishment if you cannot substantiate it. You are looking like the one thinks the best form of defence is attack. One has to wonder why that would be?

Motherofdragons Sun 21-Jun-20 11:35:59 'ignorant ramblings have you read your posts? Really? I have quoted facts, the law was followed. The law said children and GPs should be reunited. FACT. Now which bit of the law are you saying again that I don't understand?

You can rant on and on as much as you like but the law is the arbiter of what is legal and what is not!

Motherofdragons Sun 21-Jun-20 11:55:24 if the parents were behaving in a reasonable way teh gps wouldn't get the order. Obvious to most people. Why does that need to be explained over and over again? What is the 'criteria' you refer to? Clarity would be most helpful.

"Smile if a parent subverts the court order then the police can be called to enforce it. I know of a case where that happened

And then she said:

It was not what happened in the case I referred to, 2 policemen came after a call to 101 and they stayed long enough to make the parent be reasonable" How does that contradict? The parent 'subverted' police were called, they made the parent be reasonable?

Wrong again. I was there I know what happened. Are you calling me a liar?

Star What do you want to know, time, place, names of people involved? If I put that on here I would identify the culprit and I'm not prepared to do that.

Interesting that I am being called a liar when I haven't asked anyone to prove any of the things they say. You may not like what I say but I am telling the truth.

Starblaze Sun 21-Jun-20 12:46:33 You are saying I lied! Take it back. A 'story' an event.

That is not honesty, it is your opinion. I am telling the truth and everything I have said is true. It is pretty low when you feel that someone makes a point you don't like to claim it is not true. It diminishes your argument. That certainly sets the bar very low, I wouldn't sink that low.

Sparkling Sun 21-Jun-20 13:12:51 I can see where you are coming from but what about the poor child who has been denied a loving relationship and not understanding why?