Just to see the children

Grandparents vary as much as parents and children do.

My ex MIL was toxic, i estranged her completely in 1979 and never saw her again. Nor did my kids, until they were in their 30’s, and once was enough for them.

Courts or no courts, hell would have frozen over before I had complied with her seeing them. To be clear, my ex husband (her son) felt the same way as me.

On the other hand, my parents were wonderful GPs, and even if I had fallen out with them, there is no way I would have kept the children from them. They just all loved each other to bits.

Children might have some rights, but parents, ultimately, need to have the final say. So, if the parents don’t want contact between GPs and GCs, for whatever reason, that’s the way it needs to be. No courts, no trying to see them, nothing.

Children can’t possibly make decisions about seeing someone, as they may not know the background to the problems.

The Family Court system is unreliable anyway - many fathers struggle to see their children, despite court orders saying they can. The mothers often block them.

Bibbity

If the parents are deemed fit and all involved agencies believe they are fit. Leave them alone.

If they are not fit then visitation isn't going to help at all.

Another very good point.

I would agree with you Smileless2012 " its not the rights of the parents or the grandparents that are the issue" its the rights of the children.

Younger children do not have a voice of their own and should the grand-parents take it on themselves to allow the children to use their voice by going to court to specify what they want then it should be allowed. This is not the grand-parents forcing their rights it is GPs wanting to keep contact
of much loved GC who both love each other.

The children's act in its entirety needs a vast overhaul as it far from now is not fit for purpose for the job it is designed to do. Children are not properly safe-guarded from parents that prove inadequate and are unfit to do their correct parenting role.

The children act must move forward from it's Dickensian stance and create a modern safer child influenced act that works for the children and not sub-standard parents that are only trying to score points against the one in the middle the grand-parent.

Yes it is correct as the grand-parent we have to first apply to the court for permission to bring the case to court and hope we can be successful. Then we have to prove how much we have been in the grand-children's lives, and how much they mean to us and jump through a million hoops.
As we do this the parent (which in my case is one parent) of the children because sadly the other parent is in prison and we do not even know the father of the youngest child neither does it's mother and the sad case of a social worker who has her on a child protection order is still trying to say she would like to be a good mother at some point and wants to keep the family together. So yet the parents are still treated with having parental "rights"
Only us grand-parents are gas-lighted and invalidated when we have been the only stable ones all through the children's traumas and yet parents can rip them from us just as they please and we have to jump through hoops in a court room.
"It's only a farce a cruel joke and nothing more" and it is about time that grand-parents were listened to.

Glammagran you are right I would not leave a penny to my off spring that has given me this heartbreak that is if there is anything left as I have paid out hundreds already which has been pay to see your grand-children and you can take them out. I payed and always would and if I had to sell my home and everything I had I would gladly do it just for those children. Of course I am just a stupid grand-mother I know nothing about loving my grand-children do I?

If the parents are deemed fit and all involved agencies believe they are fit. Leave them alone.

If they are not fit then visitation isn't going to help at all.

Summerlove

So, who is in the best place to fight for childrens right?

The children can not, so it comes down to parents and grandparents. When those two parties are in disagreement, who has the higher authority?

Exactly this.

So, who is in the best place to fight for childrens right?

The children can not, so it comes down to parents and grandparents. When those two parties are in disagreement, who has the higher authority?

It's not a pointless discussion, many good points have been made which I have read and considered.

As for me, I have said very clearly that I do think some grandparents are cut off unfairly. I just don't see how the process can change without putting some children at risk of at least some form or harm and children come first.

I could just let you know if I change my mind?

I agree icanhandthemback maybe one day there'll be a better and fairer system in place.

VioletSky

Again, it is not the children enforcing their rights, it's the grandparents.

The children's act in its entirety safeguards children from harm.

So that is why things are as they are and must stay that way.

That is what the Act is intended to do but that is not always how it works. Just the same as in every law, there are areas where it falls short, relies on interpretation with fair rulings and is dependent on all parties being entirely truthful.
When it comes to the Courts, I have watched Judges bend over backwards to be "fair" to unco-operating, violent fathers, mothers who have an agenda because of their feelings of rejection and shutting down an area of questioning because "lots of people threaten to shoot their wives but don't go through with it," even when there were unrelated, professional people who went in fear of their lives so were willing to give evidence of their belief he was serious.

"Again, it is not the children enforcing their rights, it's the grandparents"

No it isn't, it's the courts that enforce the children's rights. I'm surprised you don't know that if you studied it for your diploma VS.

Like I've said, this is a pointless discussion when you constantly and incorrectly refer to GP's rights, P's rights and now GP's enforcing children's rights.

I am afraid if you do it will be a slippery slope. How long before you start to think about how to engineer a meeting?

It is pointless arguing about whether a GP is right or wrong to want access just as it is pointless pontificating as to whether the parent is right or wrong. Judgements get skewed in such an emotive area and what one person would think was acceptable, another would heartily disagree.

For my part, I think that as along as a GP isn't unsafe with the children , either emotionally or physically, or the children aren't adversely affected, it is usually best for children to have the widest engagement with their extended family. Sadly, parents are not always the best people to make that decision and it should be the children's rights that are paramount. Unfortunately, children are used as pawns with very little say and rather than a Court Hearing, I would like to see parents explain themselves to an unbiased mediator. I would like to see a system where an independent arbiter worked with the families to see what arrangements could be put in place so nobody loses out. Unfortunately, that would be expensive so it will never happen.

Again, it is not the children enforcing their rights, it's the grandparents.

The children's act in its entirety safeguards children from harm.

So that is why things are as they are and must stay that way.

Once again this is proving to be a pointless discussion with you VS as you keep talking about parents rights with regard to their children, despite my saying numerous times here on GN over the years, that in the case of children seeing their GP's it's not the rights of the parents or GP's that are the issue, it's the rights of the children.

We've done so glammagran it wasn't an easy decision but for us it would be wholly inappropriate for our ES to inherit from two people he refuses to have contact with.

I hope all you estranged grans who have been cut out of your children’s and grandchildren’s lives will also cut them out of your wills.

Very few are grandparents successfully get leave and very few of those few will ever get any access through the court

This is because the mere act of going to court and then forcing a parent to hand over a child to someone else for any period of time will be detremntal in some way to both the parent and the child.

Even the other parent, where one parent says they are unsafe must jump through many many hoops to get access through courts.

This is safeguarding children and as it should be.

It doesn't matter if in some cases a child's parent refuses contact for no good reason. What matters is safeguarding children first and foremost and so the courts must do this. No one has rights to children except their parents and even some parents must fight for those rights in order to ensure all children are kept safe.

I can't prove your wrong VS as although I too studied the Children Act as part of my degree course, I didn't study it in great detail.

As things stand the implementation of the Children Act, indeed the very reason it was established back in 1889 is to ensure children's safety.

And the issue is what child collects evidence while growing up?

Yes Bibbity extended family members isn't just about GP's.

Obviously I'm not talking about cases where children would be at risk VS and I know what the procedures are, what evidence has to be provided by the GP's etc.

One parent could be claiming the GP's are unsafe due to their personal prejudice. GP's don't have leave to go to court, they have get the courts permission (leave) before any legal process can begin. They have to apply to court to go to court.

Of course the GP's need to demonstrate they have been a positive and large part of their GC's lives. All GP's have the right to apply to the courts, but not all are successful.

I don't think it being in the children's act would change my opinion though as I believe as things stand is the best way to ensure children remain safe.

And like I said. I am thankful it is not enforced.

Sorry, I've studied the children's act for my diploma and don't remember seeing that Smileless. I've tried to find it again since too.

I'm always happy to be proven wrong though.

Welcome or not Bibbity it isn't just my opinion I'm giving, I'm also discussing the law.

Yes and when you asked me before VS I told you I couldn't tell you where it is. I also told you my brother is a retired family solicitor who represented both parents and GP's on this matter, just in case you doubt what I am saying.

Not just Grandparents. Aunts, Uncles, Cousins!

Smileless there are instances before where I have agreed with you that some grandparents are cut off from their grandchildren unfairly, due to the loss of a parent or divorce etc.

When both parents agree a child should not see a grandparent, there should be no basis for a grandparent to come to court.

Where one parent says that grandparents are unsafe, again that is a safeguarding issue and the parents views should be paramount and the grandparent should not have leave to take it to court and cause further stress and upset to the family.

These decisions are made before the process starts, and the grandparent has to prove they have been a big part of the child's life and a positive one to start the process.

This is as it should be. Granting rights would change the law and allow all grandparents to go to court.

You are welcome to that opinion.

If parents are deemed to raise children with no outside influence. Then they are fit or decide who is involved.

And the ones subjected to the discussed influence of the Grandparents are the best to judge.