Sign for grandchildren

That would be for cafcass to sort out, wouldn't it?
I have custody of my grandson, who doesn't see his father.
I am not going to air dirty washing on here, but the reasons why were explained, accepted, and taken into account when I explained them.

MissAdventure

I dont think its acceptable to wait until it's clear that parents are withholding access for nefarious reasons.

You manage just fine, as did me and my daughter - just the two of us.

Others manage much less fine, and end up much worse for having access denied.

Are GPs the answer to this though? Sometimes the GPs are part of an inter-generational problem. Not always, of course. Connecting families with other families (parenting social connection groups, for example) might be a very effective way of providing more connection and support when necessary.

MissAdventure

I think it because the days are long gone when decisions are made on behalf of the most vulnerable in society without any recognition that they may not be made with best interests at heart.
As I've said,recent events have highlighted that better than I ever could.
My child my rules just doesnt cut it anymore.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to bring those cases into a discussion around grandparent’s rights. As far as I’m aware, those grandparents raised concerns with the appropriate authorities, providing evidence of abuse, and those authorities failed to act. Short of granting automatic residence to grandparents, what alternative action could they have taken?

Those cases are not the vast majority of parents, so when you say that “my child, my rules” doesn’t cut it anymore. Doesn’t cut it for who?

That's exactly it.
Sometimes the gps are the catalyst for a whole host of family problems.
Sometimes they aren't.
A blanket ban, therefore isnt acceptable.

Just the same as people living with a learning disability.
Parents used to decide how they lived, what they were allowed to do etc.
It's now seen as not a great model for people to abide by, because they have rights, however vulnerable they are.
They need to be properly assessed and addressed, and parents have to accept that.

The fact remains, whether you think it appropriate or not, grandparents were stopped from seeing their grandchildren because they thwarted the parents rights to inflict injury and abuse on their child.
It's a very extreme case, I know, but it's also very extreme to assume that all grandparents just want to cause problems, perhaps sexually abuse, or otherwise act in their grandchildren worst interests.

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.

As I said at the beginning, you're free not to sign the petition, or to start another, if you feel strongly enough.

Parents do not have to accept it for their vulnerable children. Under that thinking outside authorities get to impose their own values about what disability means for a person. Now we have many autistic voices coming out saying they experienced a particular form of intervention as abusive. As a mother to an autistic person, I will fight any authority that would attempt to force that intervention on my child because they think it is best (it still exists). That is their value they are seeking to impose on a child. It is not necessarily the only one or best one.

Fortunately most professionals now will present options and allow consideration of them. It is my job to not just accept things without critical consideration, and it is my job to reject any professional advice that is not in the best interests of my child, from someone who doesn't know them like I do.

It's been said so many times but it's just not heard.

Grandparents getting access doesn't help children with abusive parents.

Grandparents getting access does allow abusive grandparents round grandchildren.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've signed Minty.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.