Sign for grandchildren

Great Post DL

I think abuse needs to be separated from this petition, as those young children, recently murdered, all had contact with GPs and other relatives. They were let down by a combination of lockdowns, restrictions and failures of schools, doctors, police and Social Services.

Most would agree abusers should not be near children, whether it’s the parents, the GPs or anyone else. I worked in Child Protection, and abusers come in all classes, ages and types.

So, taking the petition as it is, and not including any situation with abuse, I wouldn’t sign it.

Grandparents don’t have “rights” nor should they. Parental Responsibility is for parents, and they need to make the decisions, until the children are old enough to make their own. Two sets of relatives, scrapping over access would not, in my view, improve a child’s life.

Courts can intervene, in exceptional circumstances, to overrule this, if it is felt in the child’s best interests for them to see their GCs.

But, I do think parents should do what is in the best interests of their children, and encourage access, unless there is a very good reason not to do so.

If the adults could put their own angst with each other to one side, then the GPs and GC could still have a good relationship.

Myself and my ex estranged his mother, but it was genuinely in the best interests of our children. It’s a long saga, but we didn’t budge from that.

On the other hand, my parents were a different ballgame. My Dad was lovely, but my mother was an extremely difficult woman. She was like it with most people, including me. She was only interested in my younger brother, and put me down constantly as a child, forever trying to wreck my self worth. However, my Dad and I were close, I grew up in a large East End community, with extended family, so I got on with it, as you did then. I was well cared for, practically, and there was no physical or sexual abuse. But, it was wearing, knowing you were a disappointment.

I got married, too young at 18, to get away from her, and was reducing contact as far as I could, without causing any dramas.

Then I became pregnant…she morphed into the mother I wished I’d always had. Supportive and loving. I was pretty startled.

I had my daughter, then a son 18 months later. Although she sort of reverted to being negative with me, she was the best grandmother I could have, for in respect of my kids. I would have chosen her if I could lol

My dad was great, as I knew he would be. The children stayed weekends with them, went on holidays, and I trusted them 100%.

My children adored them, and were heartbroken when they died.

When I saw how loving she was, with them, I made the decision then, that whatever my relationship with her, I would never take those children out of her orbit, and I never did.

My mother and I sort of reached a truce of sorts - we were cordial, polite and respectful to each other, although there was no real affection on either side. It worked. I gritted my teeth with her at times, but the kids came first.

That, I think, I’d, ideally the best way - although I know it can’t always be like that.

GG65

*So many children are fought over in court already and I've seen first hand the impact that has on them. If instead of grandparents the children's act were ammended to include "family members" just how many pieces are we willing to cut children's lives into?*

It seems to me that as long as the person gets “their time” with the child, they don’t really care, as it’s brought up time and time again and no one ever answers the question.

Why should grandparents be singled out for access when there are other people/relatives who have an equal or more significant role in a child’s life?

It's a big can with many worms isn't it

You absolutely cannot have a discussion about what is best for children without acknowledging that some children would be placed at risk by what is being discussed. That's short sighted, especially when children like Arthur and Baby Star are mentioned.

Also as hard is it is to hear, times are changing in many ways.

One example of that, my husband and I are both estranged from our mother's but for very different reasons. My husbands mother suffers from addiction and mental health issues. The outcome is that we were both abused but his is more obvious and evidenced as he was removed from her care.

Yet we have given her chances because we understand why she is how she is and we know that she was a young parent in an age where there wasn't a lot of help and support for mental health and there was a huge social stigma attached to getting that help. Eventually we had to accept that without those interventions she has become who she is and is entrenched and cannot see the problems in herself and so cannot seek help to change. So we don't have a relationship with her.

There is no guilt attached to my mother as her abuse and neglect were emotional, deliberate and unprovable. My husband will happily tell you that my mother is worse than his even though I find that hard given I know what he has been through.

Yet, I had huge mental health issues and went off the rails for a time with drinking. The difference is there was help and support available and I felt empowered to take it when I became a parent so the outcome for me and my children is vastly different.

So no, I won't ever stop fighting against the idea that childrens lives can be chopped into pieces the same way I won't stop talking about the importance of mental health, especially for children like me in order that they do not go on to repeat those past patterns and become what hurt them.

I care about the welfare of children too, I'm just seeing it from all angles.

It's heartbreaking that children lose access to good grandparents but the right to decide what constitutes a good grandparent needs to be in the hands of the parent. If the parents are unsuitable to make the right decision, access won't help those children. Mental health awareness, promotion of parenting skills, organisations around safeguarding all need proper funding and training as the first priority.

That's more important.

I'd rather know children are happy and safe from afar than have access to them.

So many children are fought over in court already and I've seen first hand the impact that has on them. If instead of grandparents the children's act were ammended to include "family members" just how many pieces are we willing to cut children's lives into?

It seems to me that as long as the person gets “their time” with the child, they don’t really care, as it’s brought up time and time again and no one ever answers the question.

Why should grandparents be singled out for access when there are other people/relatives who have an equal or more significant role in a child’s life?

Why is extending the family that children are able see being equated with them being put at more risk with possibly more unsuitable people FGS?

Reasons are not being ignored, they're being disagreed with, and I vehemently disagree with the fact that every time this issue is discussed, and the EGP's who are entering into the discussion are not abusers, that abuse is constantly brought in.

When children are not at risk of abuse from the GP's they know and love, exactly whose interests are being served by destroying that relationship? Not the children's and not the GP's.

In order for grandparents to have automatic leave to apply for contact then the children's act would need to be ammended in at least 3 places I know of to state "parents and grandparents" instead of just parents.

The children's act already clearly outlines that children have a right to contact with both parents unless doing so would be harmful to them.

I really don't understand, when we already know that some parents aren't suitable, why anyone thinks it's a good idea to amend the act to include more relatives and more risk and more possibly unsuitable people.

So many children are fought over in court already and I've seen first hand the impact that has on them. If instead of grandparents the children's act were ammended to include "family members" just how many pieces are we willing to cut children's lives into?

What would prevent family members who haven't had a falling out but are simply unhappy with the time they spend with children from going to court for access?

It's a can of worms and so many reasons have been given why. When those reasons are ignored I have to ask again, whose interests would really be served by this?

You're so rightIam64 its life changing for all concered im sure . Thank you for that acknowledgement.

Yes that's right Iam but as far as I'm aware that only applies if one parent is moving away from the other parent, not a GP.

This petition isn't about "enshrining grandparents rights in law" it's about the law as it stands, in which GP's have no rights, being more effective and pro active in ensuring that a child's right to know extended family members is acted upon.

Estrangement needs to be debated openly. We all have a opinion so voice it*Peasblossom*.

GC65 is correct to say if a Contact Order is in place, one parent planning to move a distance away could well result in the matter being back before the Court.
Most families manage their contact arrangements without the need to involve the Family Court. Many contested applications are avoided by mediation with Cafcass or a mediator, often approved by the parents solicitor.
I can’t see it as adding anything positive to try and enshrine ‘grandparents rights’ in law.
If the family breakdown reaches that point, it’s unlikely to be resolved and will cause great distress to all concerned.

I should add, my own belief if that most grandparents offer so much that it’s tragic when they’re excluded.

I can't find anything that even suggests that if GP's have a contact order, that could prevent the child's family from moving away GG.

It only appears to apply when one of the parent's has a contact order and TBH where as it may will be enforced when this is the case, it's hardly likely to be so when the GP has contact.

TBH GG I think bringing the possibility into this discussion that GP's may be able to prevent a family from moving away, simply because they had contact with their GC is ridiculous. We are talking about contact here, not custody

Actually, if there is a contact order in place, you can’t just move with the children if it is going to effect the existing contact arrangements without the stress, time and expense of having to take it back to court. And perhaps being denied.

It is really not ridiculous at all. It is something that needs to be considered when advocating to erode the rights of a parent to make decisions for their own children.

Ah yes, I see what you mean Iam you've made a good point. It's a mine field of complexities isn't it.

Smilesless- it’s more likely in public law for significant people to be considered. Say a 14 year old is the subject of care proceedings, the proposal is a children’s home but the child says s/he wants to live with X, an adult neighbour, maybe the mother of a school friend for example.
Sorry if I extended away from the focus of the OP. I was attempting to confirm my view that the CA as it stands is ok.

I agree with Smilesless post at 12.53 today. It’s difficult to accept but whilst most people are reasonable, a few just aren’t. Going to law doesn’t always help and can entrench existing difficulties

Because it does exist in some places and there are many parents like me who need to protect their children from the people who abused them so we fight against it, share information, legal advice, support people who can't afford a legal defense etc

You can call it "children's rights" but that doesn't change the outcome for parents like me, it's just semantics

But it doesn't mean GP's rights VS, there is no such thing in law as GP's rights so why have a group fighting against something that doesn't actually exist?.

Thank you Granniesunite.

It's a global group and an umbrella term for what it actually means, children do not go to court.

No reason to keep your thoughts to yourself Peasblossom we should all be able to accept that not everyone has the same thoughts and opinions as ourselves.

"That could include grandparents, other relatives or an adult who had been actively involved in their lives". As far as I'm aware Iam the Children Act only includes family members.

Re the text messages, I suppose I was just mulling over all the details that would have to be specified in a change to the Children’s Act. That was just one that sounds minor but would need making clear specifically.

If access to grandparents became law maybe there would need to be a kind of drawing up of contracts? When I moved in with OH a couple of years ago we sa down with a solicitor and drew up a “Memorandum of Understanding” about how we were going to share the house, duties, expenses, family access and stuff. Maybe it would need something similar? Real details about what would be involved in the access?

Like I said I don’t think this petition is the way forward. There’s not been enough thought out into it. I think it will just muddy the waters.

But I don’t have any emotional involvement in this issue. It might be good that I can think about it dispassionately or maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself.?

Why is there "a group who fights grandparents rights"? For the umpteenth time GP's don't have any rights.

I'm sure any decent GP wouldn't insist on seeing their GC if the child didn't want to see them. I'm sure there are decent parents who wouldn't want to deprive their children of their GP's just because they (the parents) don't want to see them.

There will sadly be some GP's who wouldn't behave responsibly and in the best interests of the child(ren), just as there are parents who don't do so either.

Very well said smileless. Reasoned and sensible post.

I’ve read the petition and feel more convinced not to sign. It’s badly worded and the reference to Star and Arthur unnecessary and emotive.
The children act sets out the child’s right to maintain contact with significant people. That could include grandparents, other relatives or an adult who had been actively involved in their lives.

I have quite a good understanding of the court process through friends experiences and reading accounts from a group who fights grandparents rights (I'm one of them).

One does not simply "go back to court" when that costs time, money and more stress.

In that situation the grandparent should just allow the grandchild not to come otherwise it is a double standard