Hope For Estranged Grandparents

Nonnie, where do you come to know of so many people who have cut off grandparents for the frivolous reasons you listed?
I think there are few who would but someone off for such entitled reasons.

Nonnie I am glad you can no longer call me "damaged". I hope that extends to being allowed an opinion on this subject without what you perceive as my brokenness influencing my opinion unfairly when it does not.

We have 3 main battle cries on this thread, without generalisations that have already been put aside

What about good grandparents?

What about bad grandparents?

Court battles over children badly impact the cbildren!

In an ideal world abusive people would have a red flag waiving above their heads that everyone could see.

If we can't acknowledge that these cases being easy and normal would end up causing problems for children then that's denying that abusive people are ever given access to minor children, when we all should know they are.

As much as I feel for grandparents cut off through no fault of their own, they take a risk going to court that they may cause harm to children either directly or indirectly by setting precidents.

That's valid and genuine concern for children which we should all have.

The mother in the link you provided sounds like a nightmare Ironflower and if I were in those poor parents shoes, there's no way I'd be comfortable with unsupervised contact.

So the order isn't always the be all and end all for the parents that's true Bibbity moving and emigrating to subvert a court order does sound extreme but of course we don't know the reasons behind those decisions.

I did post earlier on the thread that even if GP's are successful, parents can make all sorts of excuses as to why the child(ren) aren't available for visits or simply fail to turn up.

GP's then have to return to court to have the order enforced but that wont necessarily improve the situation.

I can understand why, if visitation has been disrupted long term, a subsequent court hearing would refuse GP's contact. Courts take into account the benefits of the relationship the child(ren) had with their GP's before it was stopped.

If, despite the success of the GP's court application, that relationship is successfully subverted by the parents for a sustained period of time, the previous benefits the child(ren) had from seeing their GP's is no longer relevant.

An interesting scenario when we see claims that GP's go to court for power and control. Clearly, even with a court ruling, the power and control is in the hands of the parents.

Yes Nonnie that’s right.l

OceanMama Sat 20-Jun-20 10:13:26 I imagine it is the same as those who know of cases of bad grandparenting, I've read about it. I do actually know of some of the instances personally.

Starblaze Sat 20-Jun-20 10:13:39 bit hard, I never did that all I did was answer your question. Will you answer mine?

You've missed the 4th, equally import Parents who hurt their children by depriving them of loving relationships. Need to be even handed or we will think there is bias.

I don't think anyone has suggested it is 'easy' or 'normal'. I just don't know of any other way of dealing with a situation where a parent has unreasonably cut out the GPs from the child's life. Seems to me the OP had thought it through and been left with no option.

I reiterate that going to court does not automatically damage the children. There is no reason why they have to know unless someone tells them. The court would not ask the opinion of a young child. I ask what kind of parent would involve a child in such a thing? There are many areas of adult life that there is no reason to tell children about. Telling them you are in a fight with GPs seems to me a very bad thing to do.

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. If they continue to do so it goes back to the court which imposes penalties and if the parent continues it is Contempt of Court which can result in a custodial sentence. Now that really would affect the child!

Do you mean about my job role Nonnie?

Nonnie -- You said, "HH did you really mean " both estranged sides of the 'family"? If that were the case I think the courts might ask why you had cut off all GPs as that would rather imply you were the problem. Perhaps you didn't mean that."

I meant exactly that. My husband was no contact with his family when we met and I was very low contact. We have never had a relationship with each others parents.

So of course everyone in our 'family' views Us as the issue and a court may very well see the same thing based on the number of people who could 'testify' to what rotten people we are.

We were both bullied and scapegoated our entire lives and the only protection we've ever been given by society is the right to walk away.

Liberal grand-parent rights would just be one more abuse tactic that they could use to try to force contact with Us.

Nonnie would grandparents really want to risk their grandchild losing a parent due to custodial sentence?

Or would they just say, well the parent should do as they are told and it's their fault they didn't and I have no responsibility for my grandchild pain

Starblaze your post @ 10.13. When you ask a question there's always the possibility that one of the potential answers will be upsetting. Better in those circumstances not to ask the question in the first place, especially 3 times.

You question was answered IMO in an understanding and sympathetic way. It was ridiculous that the post containing the answer was deleted. No doubt it was reported too and looked at by GNHQ in isolation and out of context.

Had GNHQ read around the post and seen it was in response to your question, I can't but think it would never have been deleted.

I suggest you let it go and stop badgering Nonnie by referring to it any further.

We also have estrangement on both sides Holyhannah. That shouldn't imply anything except the fact that we have a lot in common even if our situations are quite different.

I have answered Nonnie Smileless. Not badgered. I have already let it go. Maybe you could too now.

"Nonnie I'm glad you can no longer call me damaged* she didn't call you damaged, she answered your question.

Nonnie -- I should add, we didn't cut the grand-parents out of our life. They were never involved/have never met our children.

Yes Star you have so much experience in this area it cannot possibly that it is only people you know. I assume the experience must have been gained in child protection in some way.

Starblaze Sat 20-Jun-20 11:23:21 I don't know, I think it is an horrific scenario which I hope I never see. I think it would depend on the circumstances of an individual case and perhaps the wider message that was being sent. If parents flaunted court orders as a matter of course that would be wrong and someone would have to send out a different message, By the same token if a GP didn't abide by the court order they should also be scrutinised.

Any chance we could talk about the principles rather than defending individual circumstances? I feel so sorry for anyone in this situation but each case is different and does not necessarily have any bearing on other cases. I commented kindly about one case and my post was deleted so I would prefer not to discuss individual cases.

There are a surprising number of parents and GP's who are estranged for the reasons Nonnie referred too OceanMama.

We've seen EP's and EGP's say they are the reasons for their estrangement here on GN and I've seen them on sites for EP's that I used to go on.

I agree that they are "frivolous" but estrangements do happen because of them.

Parents refusing to adhere to court orders does happen and is wrong. It happens when there's been a divorce, one parent making it virtually impossible for the other to have access to their children.

Since the virtual non existence of legal aid, especially when it comes to family cases, it can be impossible for the parent being denied contact to go back to court because they simply can't afford it.

I think the fact that some GP's finance their AC's legal fees was mentioned on this thread earlier, and it's not surprising if they can see their AC suffering because they can't get access to their own children and don't have the financial means to go back to court.

Star did you forget I had asked you to tell me which part of the court system I didn't understand? Thanks

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Nonnie I see two questions I haven't answered. Job title doesn't matter, I work with children and I am trained in safeguarding, SEN and emotional development which is what is relevant. My job title would reveal too much personal info.

The article I asked if you had read twice explains how the court process may harm children and this is known because children are harmed by it, no matter how many good intentions are involved.

I'm not forcing you to defend yourself Starblaze and TBH your reiteration of all of those posts isn't a defence.

They clearly illustrate what I put in my post today @ 11.25, that there was an ongoing conversation between yourself andNonnie about 'damage'. The reported post was reported in isolation, out of context and GNHQ were not aware of the conversation that had taken place, which is why it was deleted.

All the posts you have re posted show one of you consistently and repeatedly referring to damage; and it wasn't Nonnie.

The parents don’t need to be reasonable. They are the parents and can be as unreasonable as they like. It is still their decision who their children have a relationship with. I know that is difficult for many of you to accept, but it is the reality of the situation nonetheless

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

Nonnie which totalitarian regime do you think we are living under? We have the freedom to parent our children as we see fit without interference from the state and certainly without interference from grandparents and other third parties! Do you seriously think courts exist to police parental decisions? To referee arguements between adults (adults that aren’t even parents to the child)? Which authority did you defer to whilst raising your own children? The courts can’t even make parents behave reasonably when it comes to the other parent!

The parents have to do what is best for the children, no what they want are you serious? The world is full of parents not doing what is best for their children! Those parents certainly aren’t dragged to court to have their decisions questioned. The importance with which some grandparents view themselves is astounding!

When the court sees that the parent is being unreasonable they can give a Court Order which makes the parent/s be reasonable. First of all, how do you define reasonable? What is unreasonable to you is perfectly reasonable to someone else. Secondly, you can’t force a parent to comply with someone who is not the other parent! Non parents have no rights! The importance with which some grandparents view themselves is astounding!

It seems you view the court as some sort of “super parent”. When one can’t impose their own will on their children, the “court” can do it for them. You are mistaken. You are a fine example of a controlling parent.

I am unsure why you are qualified to speak for Gransnet and I knew you would say that Smileless. I'm fine with you not understanding how I felt my thoughts on the subject were being undermined.

Are you ready to drop it now? Or do you wish to continue escalating it when it was a simple question to someone else, (not you), because I felt hurt (at the time).

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

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. If they continue to do so it goes back to the court which imposes penalties and if the parent continues it is Contempt of Court which can result in a custodial sentence. Now that really would affect the child!

You have rambled on now for pages and pages about putting the child first. Is this how you view putting the child first?