Hope For Estranged Grandparents

Smile if a parent subverts the court order then the police can be called to enforce it

Incorrect in the UK. It’s a civil matter and will not involve the police.
The only way to enforce an order would be to peruse an emergency court order.

Thank goodness for that!

There are lots of ways in which parents which includes denying their children their right to know their extended family, which of course includes their children's GP's.

I struggle to understand why GP's who end up going to court are accused of "dragging" their GC's parents there. Parents have the opportunity to put their personal feelings to one side and come to some arrangement for contact to continue.

If they are unable or unwilling to reach an agreement with the GP's, they can attend a meeting with a fully qualified mediator.
This is expected to be undertaken by both sides before a case goes to court. It is not legally enforceable but refusal to agree to mediation may reflect badly if and when the case goes to court.

There are then at least two opportunities for parents and GP's to achieve an agreed and workable solution before the GP's take the next step of requesting leave (permission) from the court to take their case further.

I haven't posted that the police enforce a court order, as I know that's not the case which is why I've previously posted why not just GP's but P's have to go back to court to get the order enforced.

@Smileless2012, it was Nonnie but she referenced you in her post so that’s probably why it looks like we are quoting you!

That was quoting Nonnie answering you Smileless it confused me at first too

Sorry Nonnie I can see that was what you posted and you know of a case where that happened. I had no idea that was possible and stand corrected.

Just a thought, I wonder if the police in the case you mentioned thought they had the power to enforce the court order Nonnie and the parents assumed that was the case, so complied.

Just a thought, I wonder if the police in the case you mentioned thought they had the power to enforce the court order Nonnie and the parents assumed that was the case, so complied

I find it really hard to believe that the police would just assume something like this (it is their job to know and act within the provisions of the law) and that the parents would just comply before checking with their lawyer (if they hadn’t already done so).

Perhaps Nonnie could clarify.

How terrible it must be to live in a country where the courts determine who your children are obligated to spend time with-

I can clearly understand why parents would be hesitant or simply refuse to introduce their children to their extended family if that introduction establishes contingency-

Question/s: Are parents given leaflets or pamphlets informing them of such laws when their children are born?
Or is it that the laws have been on the books for so long that pretty much everyone is aware of the ramifications should they choose to interact with grandparents?

I'm kind of flabbergasted .. No, frightened by the very idea of it- If that were the case here I would gladly sign away my right to seek legal enforcement of the law simply as a measure of protection and security for my adult children's right to decide and peace of mind-

I struggle to understand why GP's who end up going to court are accused of "dragging" their GC's parents there. Parents have the opportunity to put their personal feelings to one side and come to some arrangement for contact to continue

Yes, parents have the opportunity to come to some arrangement for contact, but they are not obliged to do so!

Grandparents are accused of “dragging” their children to court because they are trying to override the parent’s decision and enforce their own will in situations where they have no authority.

Starblaze Sat 20-Jun-20 12:58:33 Thank you for that, now everyone can see how kind and understanding I was. I would however like to know why you think "Nonnie Thu 18-Jun-20 14:26:19
Finally caught up on this very difficult thread."

was anything to do with you? Bit odd you should think that.[confuesd]

Motherofdragons Sat 20-Jun-20 14:03:09 that is offensive, please retract. How dare you

Fine if you have a reason you can't tell us why you are an expert that is up to you. We can make up our own minds based upon what you have posted.

You still haven't explained which part of the court process I don't understand. Why is that?

MoD yes, that is exactly what the courts are for. Perhaps you can ask star to explain it to you as she is an expert. If you read the OP you will see that is exactly what the court did.

I am absolutely serious that everyone should do what is best for the children.

I do not define reasonable the court does.

I am wondering where you get all this from as it seems as if you haven't any idea of the law of the UK. Are you from somewhere else. The UK law is not a "totalitarian regime" but everything I have said applies in the UK. I cannot speak for any other country but I think anyone who has no idea how the law works would be wise not to question it.

star how were your thoughts undermined? I think if you make such a claim against any of us it would be appropriate to explain.

Motherofdragons Sat 20-Jun-20 14:07:53 this is about the parent not the child. Do you think it is OK for a parent to subvert a court order? Really?

Don't think so Bibbity contempt of court is about the court. I know of a case where the police intervened and made a person obey a court order.

Smileless2012 Sat 20-Jun-20 14:46:09 no idea, just know they did.

Supposing it is a civil matter I imagine it would be fairly simple to go back to the court and prove the order had been subverted. Would need to pay legal fees, there is bound to be a process. If a gp has been forced to go to court for the sake of their gc I doubt they would be put off from going back to court to ensure it was enforced.

Nonnie more uncalled for rudeness. I've never said I am an expert, just explained my education and my experience on the subject. Which I only did because you were accusing me of letting my personal feelings colour my views.

If that is your view then anyone on either side of the argument should not have an unbiased opinion on this one and you should be saying the same thing to estranged parents/grandparents here who have also been hurt.

PS. If you truly had sympathy for me and my awful past experiences, you would just genuinely apologise for how I feel instead of an apology blaming me for how I feel about some of the things you said to me. You certainly wouldn't continue to insult me. That's what being sympathetic is.

Instead you wish to continue the argument. I am only going to continue responding to you calmly.

I'm happy to drop the whole issue, with or without your understanding. So whether you want to continue it is up to you.

Star I have never been rude to you, please apologise.

Your own post shows how kind and understanding I have been, how much sympathy I showed you because you have had some terrible experiences. If you feel you have come through unscathed, good for you I think most of us would not.

You claimed to know such much it is understandable that I would ask if you work in that sector, I cannot see what is wrong with that or why you are so sensitive about it.

You said "you would just genuinely apologise for how I feel" how can I apologise for how you feel? You feel like you do and I feel like I do. I don't expect anyone to apologise to me for how I feel.

You have free choice to continue or not, entirely up to you.

I would remind you that none of this is about individuals it is about the court upholding children's rights to have contact with their gps. Those who have chosen to put their personal situations on here had a choice whether to do so or not. They also have a choice whether to read a post as intended or to decide on their own interpretation of the post.

I notice one of yours has been removed now.

Smileless said -- "Not all parents are good or even adequate parents for various reasons. Parents who take away their children's GP's because they themselves decide they don't want contact are not good parents. They are not taking into account the affect this can have on their children."

There's the reality. Any parent that with-holds the grand-children is not a "good parent".

Good parents protect their children from bad things/people.

My parents were not "good parents" that way and neither were my husband's 'parents'. What would make us 'bad parents' would be to expose our children to not just one set of abusive grand-parents but two sets.

It's not up to our parents to decide they are "good and loving" parents/grand-parents. It not up to a 'court' to decide if we were abused. Victims get to 'decide' if they were abused and WE WERE.

Is it 'unreasonable' that we are No Contact and does that make us bad parents or does that make us better then our abusive parents who failed Us?

Nonnie my comment was only removed for quoting the comment you had removed. Because that comment is wrong and it should be removed.

I won't apologise for calling out your behaviour.

Gransnet justifiably removed your comment to me. I will let that speak for itself. I won't engage on this topic further. Its a pointless waste of time.

Yes Holyhannah brilliantly put.

rosecarmel it really isn't as simple as a court determining who someone's children are obligated to spend time with, and there is no one law. So no, there no leaflets or pamphlets available to parents when their children are born. Far too much information to put in a leaflet or pamphlet.

As I'm sure it's the case in America, no one has full knowledge of all the laws that are enforceable in the country. More often than not, one only becomes aware of certain laws when the breaking or enforcing of them, affects them directly.

The law is so vast and complex that it is broken down into specialisms. My brother for example was family solicitor, so his expertise was in all family matters including of course children's rights and their safety. For several years he was a member of the Child Care Panel where he represented children.

1889 saw the intro. of the Children's Charter, the first time there was legal intervention for the protection of children against abuse at the hands of their parents and any adult.

1894 saw an amendment allowing children to give evidence in court and the recognition of mental cruelty.

1908 establishment of juvenile courts and the requirement of foster parents to be registered.

1932 and 1933 the powers of juvenile courts were broadened.

1948 creation of the Children Act following the death of 13 year old Dennis O'Neil at the hands of foster parents.

1970 unification of social services dep's. for greater protection of children at risk.

1974 Death of Maria Colwell at the hands of her step father highlighted a serious lack of co operation within child protection services.

1989 Central tenet became children usually best looked after within the family. The Act came into force in 1991 in England and Wales and in 1996 in Northern Ireland with some differences.

There has been criticism that this has enabled children in some cases, to be returned to abusive parents. The case of Ellie Butler mentioned by Madgran earlier on this thread being an example.

2003 Death of Victoria Climbie again highlighted the failure of health, police and social services in working together to protect a child. There were a total of 12 missed opportunities to save her.

As you can see, since it's original inception in 1889 at the forefront has always been the welfare of children in all aspects of their lives. It is the rights of children that the act in it's various forms has always put over and above the rights of any adult, including parents and GP's.

So when parents take away their children's GP's and that decision is about themselves, and has no bearing on the welfare of that children, that is a case where a court may order the parents to re establish that relationship between their children and their GP's.

It is the rights and welfare of the children that the courts make their decision on and not any rights of the parents and GP's, as in this instance, they don't have any.

Motherofdragons Sat 20-Jun-20 14:03:09 that is offensive, please retract. How dare you

I can see my comment has been deleted but I stand by everything I said! How dare I? Who are you, my mother!

You still haven't explained which part of the court process I don't understand. Why is that?

I never said you don’t understand the court process. But it is clear you have no understanding of the law whatsoever!

MoD yes, that is exactly what the courts are for

No. No, it isn’t. The courts do not police parental decisions! We have freedom to parent as we chose. Why do you think it would be otherwise? Again, which authority did you defer to when raising your children?

I am absolutely serious that everyone should do what is best for the children

That’s not what you said. You said that legally parents have to do what’s best for their children, not what they want to do themselves. But that’s not the case, is it? Prisons aren’t overflowing because little Alfie’s mum has yet another boyfriend or little Olivia’s daddy fiddled his accounts so that he pays minimal child support!

I do not define reasonable the court does

The courts DON’T CARE! They are not there to decide who is being reasonable and who is not in a falling out between adults! They are there to uphold the law. You know, the law that allows parents to make decisions on behalf of their minor children!

I am wondering where you get all this from as it seems as if you haven't any idea of the law of the UK. Are you from somewhere else. The UK law is not a "totalitarian regime" but everything I have said applies in the UK. I cannot speak for any other country but I think anyone who has no idea how the law works would be wise not to question it

Honestly Nonnie this is getting embarrassing. There are freedoms in this country which are protected in law. The law recognises that the legislation allowing third parties to apply for a Contact Order infringes upon those freedoms and that is why the burden of proof is set so high. Do you believe that the individual has a right to live their life free from state interfernce or is it your view that state interference should apply? Does that state interference apply to everyone (including you) or only to parents of minor children?

Parents withhold contact with grandparents for a variety of reasons.
Nobody has suggested at all that makes them "bad".
It's the right and moral and caring thing to do, in some cases.
In others, not.

MissAdventure -- "Nobody has suggested at all that makes them "bad"."

"Not all parents are good or even adequate parents for various reasons. Parents who take away their children's GP's because they themselves decide they don't want contact are not good parents. They are not taking into account the affect this can have on their children."

If someone is not a "good parent" for denying contact, then the implication is that you are a bad parent if you choose not to pursue that relationship...

HolyHannah once again you are making this discussion all about abuse and yes, of course that is of primary importance when thinking of a child's welfare, but this is not just about abusive parents who become GP's and are a potential risk to their GC, it's about all GP's.

I didn't say that any parent who denies their children their GP's is a bad parent. I said any parent who does so for reasons of their own, that have nothing to do with their child's welfare is a bad parent.

A parent who had an abusive childhood will fear, and rightly so, that their own children could also be abused by those same people who are now GP's, but for goodness sake, can you stop tarring all EGP's with the same abusive brush. It just makes a nonsense of the entire discussion.

Ref. your post @ 18.14 that is your interpretation of my post HolyHannah, it is not what I posted and your interpretation is incorrect.

There's the reality. Any parent that with-holds the grand-children is not a "good parent"
Is what was said.
Nobody has claimed that ANY parent doing that is bad.