Sign for grandchildren

It could be trisha that if the GC and GP's in this situation were able to use social media, together with all the other means of communication I referred to earlier, that that would be sufficient in maintaining the relationship, and GP's wouldn't feel the need to go to court for contact.

We certainly wouldn't have had a problem if we were texting out GC via text messages, if their parents had access to them Peasblossom, why would we, or any responsible GP for that matter.

I totally agree with you that this subject needs "some research on effects of estrangement on children", that that would be far more beneficial than "just one person's story".

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.

As IMO is "forced visitation". If a child does not want to see their GP's, the p's can go back to court and have the contact order rescinded. It would never be in the best interests of a child to be forced to see their GP's, and it's the best interests of the child that are the focus here. Not their parents and not their GP's.

As they grow older some GC may well be asking why they don't see GP's from one or even both sides of the family Granniesunite. Those of us who are estranged can only wait and see.

I've said this before but I'd never stand beteeen my children and their grandmother as adults. I wouldn't stand between them at any point they were responsible enough to understand the decision they were making. As minor children that is a different matter.

This has been brought up several times that one day grandchildren can and will reach out should they choose too...

What also needs to be considered is that, a grandparent going to court and losing would go against them. In that potential outcome, if courts go against them, and making this process easier to start won't change that, the outcome will impact the child's later decisions. Couple that with any remembered stress during the process and it will have a huge impact on the grandchild's later choice on the matter.

Going to court not only sabotages chances of a future relationship with a child it also does so with the grandchild.

Forced visitation with a grandchild, that means a child must go whether they want to or not and miss out on things they would rather do or controls their social lives and activities will also have a negative impact on the future relationship with the grandparent.

Not all grandchildren will have that experience of grandparents.

My grown daughter has said that if her gma ever contacts her she is going to tell her all about where she can go. She remembers her. The younger ones trust their sister and have no interest. Gma is pretty old now so I think that ship has sailed.

Responsible parents aways check children's phones...

This subject needs to be looked at. It could be one day an adult grandchild who will start the process.

I can see that a text doesn’t seem much to ask. But then would he parents have access to the texts? It couldn’t be set up as a private thing. Would it be on the parents phone? Would a child have to have their own phone? At what age?

I honestly don’t know how this can be resolved but I don’t think this petition in the form it’s presented by the OP is going to change anything. It’s purely emotive and changes to Acts passed by Parliament don’t happen on that basis.

It needs some well researched statistics, some research on effects of estrangement on children, some practical ways forward to justify why it’s needed, not just one person’s story.

To be able to text the grandchild gifts sent and the child allowed to have them would be a start and enough for some grandparents and the child.. It would be a start.

I do think in time unless abuse is involved adult children who have lost out on their grandparents will be questioning why.

There are a whole load of other practical difficulties that I can see in this proposal. Of course there is a massive emotional issue here whether you are for or against. But being me, I always have to ask how would this work and I don’t think it would.

It wouldn’t work.

There are people other than grandparents who enjoy loving and significant relationships with children, so where would it stop?

What about other extended family members. Aunts, uncles, cousins etc. What about anyone who has a significant relationship with the child? Lifelong friends of the parents, step parents etc. What if the child has had multiple step parents? Could all these people apply for access to the children.

And if grandparents were granted automatic contact with their grandchildren, would that prevent the family moving? What if they wished to give their children a better life in say, Australia, could grandparents stop this on the basis that they could not exercise their right to contact with the children?

Similarly, would this prevent families moving to different parts of the country or would they be forced to forever live within a 30 minute distance of the grandparents’ home in order that grandparents can exercise their right to contact?

It is madness. And it’s not going to happen.

I’ve thought and thought about this and I can’t see how it would actually work in practice if the premise is children’s right to see their grandparents.

Not when the children are young.

Given that the parents have physical custody of the child and are the ones denying access, how would a young child bring an action n law to gain their rights?

Would grandparents be able to bring an action on their behalf? Or would it need to be an independent outside agency?

At what age would it be considered that the child was able voice and understand the implications of exercising their rights. 8years maybe. Who would decide the rights of younger children?

There are a whole load of other practical difficulties that I can see in this proposal. Of course there is a massive emotional issue here whether you are for or against. But being me, I always have to ask how would this work and I don’t think it would.

It’s far too simplistic a petition and hasn’t been thought through as a legal, amendment to the Children’s Act, proposal.

I'm not in this situation but thinking about it, much as I love my GCs and as upset and distressed as I would be were I to be told by their parents I wasn't welcome in their lives, I hope I could make a decision in the best interests of the GCs I love. I don't think expecting a child to insist they had contact with me would help them. Especially if doing so required some sort of legal action and acting against the parent's wishes. I hope I would be strong enough to accept what had happened and let them go for a time.
I do think in the era of social media and mobile phones it will be increasingly difficult for parents to prevent contact between the child and GPs, and perhaps building towards what will happen what they become teenagers would be better for all concerned, rather than trying to inflict legal intervention on the problem.

I have signed but can see both sides of the argument. I do believe that some Grandparents are treated badly by their estranged children and the grandchildren are the ones who lose out too.

That should have said “people have fallings out”...I was too typing too quickly!

Whether some here choose to accept it or not, whether or not it's too unpalatable to take on board, there are grandchildren who are no longer to see the GP's they know and love, simply because their parents have decided they want nothing to do with them

I accept this and don’t think it’s unpalatable in the slightest.

I’m really not seeing the issue with it to be honest.

People have falling outs all the time. This is the inevitable outcome when young children who are not yours are involved though.

Yes, it's about the children's best interests, which is why some grandparents shouldn't be seen. To be clear, I said some. It's just not black and white and there is no argument that applies to every grandparent-parent-child relationship. That's what makes these discussions so difficult.

My older children know their grandparents and have no wish to see them as a result. How would it have helped the relationship if I'd had to tell them GMa had made the courts force them to have visits with her? Better to hope that she wants to give GMa a second chance when she's grown, surely? Though they're grown now and don't even want to consider that because they do remember. I would not put my children through the trauma of a forced relationship in my situation. I'd have tickets on the next plane out.

Children do have that right CafeAuLait. Any case that goes to court is based on that and that alone.

I share your scepticism when I hear/see the words "this is for the children" from parents taking away their children's GP's.

Of course any GP who goes through the courts is doing so for themselves as much as for their GC GG65. It isn't a purely altruistic act, any more than it's a purely altruistic act from all parents who deny their children that relationship.

Parents who have fallen out with their parents/p's.i.l. and prevent their children's relationship with their GP's aren't always doing so because "it's soley in the interests of the children", "so let's not pretend" that it always is.

I don't doubt that going to court will be both emotionally and financially stressful to the parents and the GP's. Something for parents to consider before doing what they do.

I understand the difficulty of arranging physical contact where one or both of the parents don't want to see their children's GP's but there are other ways for contact and the relationship to be maintained. Depending on the age of the child(ren), 'phone calls, text messages, emails, letters, cards and facetime.

Actual visits can be kept to a minimum, but as long any or all of the aforementioned together with cards and gifts from GP's being passed onto the children are carried out, the existing relationship can be maintained.

Children wont be left wondering why they don't see GM and GF anymore and they wont be left thinking that they're no longer loved by them.

There's nothing "telling when the first paragraph states grandparents are being denied access to their grandchildren", it's a fact. Would it make any difference to those so against this petition if it were to read 'grandchildren are being denied access to their grandparents'? I doubt it.

"If you want a good relationship with grandchildren, find a way to make a good one with their parents" is trotted out time and time again. So how are you supposed to do that when the parent(s) refuse to have any communication with you?

Relationships aren't one sided, they need to be worked at by all of those involved.

Whether some here choose to accept it or not, whether or not it's too unpalatable to take on board, there are grandchildren who are no longer to see the GP's they know and love, simply because their parents have decided they want nothing to do with them.

This about putting the best interests of the children first; IMO the ultimate responsibility of the parent(s).

It's just not a realistic view of how this would play out through courts.

The process would be started by the grandparent before any attempt to assertain the child's wants in most cases.

Some children would be too young to even communicate it.

Some would be sheltered from having witnessed family issues and wouldn't understand.

Especially telling when the first paragraph states "grandparents are being denied access to their grandchildren".

My son said to me today that he loves us, not because we are related but because we are good people. He said being related just meant we were guaranteed to meet. I approve of this, because no relationship should need to be enforced due to dna, fear, obligation, guilt or court of law.

If you want a good relationship with grandchildren, find a way to make a good one with their parents because the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb and this lesson is being learned by more people every day.

GG65, it is not in the interests of the children at all. It causes stress and financial stress in their family (and maybe loss of opportunities because of that). Any ongoing forced relationship with GPs will cause years of stress. Stressed parents are not ideal. It doesn't support the children at all.

That's not to say there isn't a place for seeking support for access to grandchildren, but it should be reserved for special cases, not where parents are in agreement about the situation.

Smileless2012

This isn't about GP's rights. Every time this issue is discussed on GN there are posters going on about GP's having the right to see their GC. About parents having the right to deny their children contact with their GP's.

"It's been said so many times but it's just not heard" children have the right to know their extended family and if that is the court's ruling, it is in favour of the children not the GP's.

That’s only because there is no other way for grandparents to go about it.

So let’s not pretend that grandparents going to court for access to their grandchildren is solely in the interests of the children!

I've signed Minty.

Smileless, children don't actually have a right to know their extended family. Otherwise I would have known mine. There was no estrangement there. My parents made a decision to relocate away from them all, hence I do not know them and never will. That was their right to choose as parents. (I don't like it, but still their right to choose).

I'm a bit skeptical of the "this is for the children" narrative as too often this is used to nobilise someone trying to meet their own wants.

Or maybe I've just been around someone too much telling me "I am doing this for you" when really, it was about what they wanted.

This isn't about GP's rights. Every time this issue is discussed on GN there are posters going on about GP's having the right to see their GC. About parents having the right to deny their children contact with their GP's.

"It's been said so many times but it's just not heard" children have the right to know their extended family and if that is the court's ruling, it is in favour of the children not the GP's.

MissAdventure

I'm surprised you have to ask who, frankly, considering it is a discussion about best interests for children.
I would have thought it pretty obvious that "doesnt cut it" refers to the children.

I did have to ask because you said “my child, my rules” doesn’t cut it anymore.

Given we’ve established that the vast majority of parents are not those in the recent cases being discussed, I was confused, because...

“My child, my rules” certainly cuts it for the majority of children who have decent, good enough parents. And schools, health visitors, medical professionals etc have no issues whatsoever in respecting this.

I won’t get into what I think needs to be done to better protect vulnerable children, because that is a separate discussion.

But “my child, my rules” does cut it for the majority of children. There are already bodies in place to intervene when it doesn’t.

So, like it or not, parents are and will remain the decision makers for their children. And no group of people are going to be able to change that. It’s utter madness.

I don’t think this is a good idea because where does it end? Aunts and uncles having rights? They share the same amount of DNA as grandparents do. Step-parents after a break-up? Allowing contact with a child is a parental decision. 2 of my DCs uncles have no contact with my children as they a history of drug abuse, although it’s not documented anywhere. What if they could get access? I’d have no proof that they use drugs, so would have no leg to stand on in court.

And you never know the reason for the parents choosing no contact, unless you’re involved in the situation. Yes it’s true that children are more likely to be psychologically and physically neglected by parents, but on the other hand they’re more likely to be sexually abused by an extended family member (around 27% of sexual abuse of children is by a family member who isn’t a parent/step-parent). And parents may not have proof of this to use in court to justify no contact.

As for the very sad recent cases, I don’t think grandparents rights are the answer or would have changed the outcomes, a better funded social services is needed.

I am hearing you.
I just don't agree with you.
It isnt cruel, it isnt to hurt you; I just hold a different opinion.
Its allowed, you know.

Again, I appreciate it is multifaceted and very complex, and I'm glad it isnt part of my life; it must be a constant source of unease.
I've nothing more to say though, because it's getting me uptight just talking about it here.

MissAdventure

It is other agencies jobs to ensure that a disabled person is given as much autonomy as possible.
Hence DOLS, etc.

As long as they are not forcing a disabled person to do things they are not wanting to do because someone else thinks they should be doing it.