Son says only way i can see his child is court

My GS wanted to see me and asked his auntie to take him to me. She said she would but he would have to ask daddy first. He asked his daddy and came back and said daddy said 'no' . My GS not only doesn't see his GPs on his mother's side . He also doesn't see any of his uncles aunties cousins and lots of his mummy's friends all because of his dad. It breaks my heart.

I think no parent has the right, morally at least, to stop access to grandparents without a damn good reason.

Sorry now gone on page 3. Devastatedgranny. I would wait a bit. See if he calms down. I have also been told to wait, see how things pan out. It is now 17 months on and there doesn't seem to be any calming down on my SIL part not mine for that matter, but court is a big step and could aggravate things. I am holding off until my husband recovers from ill health.

DebohunXL5. Time is of the essence though.

17 months is enough time away from a small child for the defence to say you have no standing relationship and the child may view you as a stranger.
I may disagree with the system but if you were going to do it then it needs to be ASAP. The longer you leave it then it basically becomes a certainty that you will only be throwing substantial amounts of money away.

At the time everyone was saying just give him time. My daughter passed away April 14 2017. He was supposedly grieving. (thats another story). His excuse for not letting us see the children was that he wanted them close to him at all times. So we let it be. Then he wrote us a letter despite bringing the children to our village every day for school. Saying he had put the house on the market and was moving 3 hours away. We could have 'boundaried' visits whatever that means. He let us see them for only 2 afternoons August and September '17. Then decided we couldn't see them any more and eventually moved from his rented address and disappeared. So now what are we supposed to do?

Anyway don't bother answering that. This is devastatedgranny's thread, not mine and I don't want to take over with my problems.

I honestly don’t think there is anything you can do. I am sorry.

Of course you could seek legal advice, that’s always a good idea.
But the law will only grant visitation if it can be proven that the GP has an ongoing and frequent relationship with the children.

Have you read other GPs stories about court?
You could be looking at £20K in legal fees. Would you be able to sit and hear as he attempts to destroy your character?
All for nothing?

At least 17 months a judge would order a parent to do a step up programme to reintroduce contact to a young child.
They wouldn’t do that for anyone other than a parent of a child. They just wouldn’t order visitation.

Hi Bridgeit. I just wanted to say what a really lovely idea of yours re: the book etc. I do not have children, and as such no grandchildren either, but the advice that you wrote made so much sense. Letters, photographs, even birthday cards can be amassed until hopefully there will be a day when the said Grandchild can see and read them knowing that Grandma really loved and cared about him or her.

My children want candy for supper. Because they wanted it, does That mean they should have it? No.

It is a parents legal responsibility to care for their children in the best of their ability. They don’t get that choice. A parent makes a choice until they are of legal age.

Children don’t need grandparents. Or extended family come to that. Is it lovely? Sure. But not required if the parents choose not to involve them.

Grandparents have the right to make the choices they wanted when they were in the thick of parenting. Why should they then force their choices on to their adult children and grandchildren?

I suppose children don't need parents, strictly speaking.
Plenty of kids in care turn out ok.

Anyway, yes.
Its someone else's thread, so best not to turn it into something entirely different.

Yes. But a hell of a lot more become deeply damaged and suffer severe mental health issues.

Ahh thankyou 1974cookie,,
Often it is not until later on in life that the importance of who cared about us as children becomes an essential missing link in piecing together our own personal history & circumstances.
Having tangible proof can make a whole world of difference.

The issue with taking it to court is really three-fold.

1. You're presuming that YOU, the grandparent, are the only person to REALLY have the child's best interest at heart and that the parents do not. That's a HUGE assumption to make.

2. Going to court costs money. That means it's costing your AC money too. Money that could be going to support their children. You could be taking food out of your GC's mouth. You're also putting additional stress on the family. Realistically, which stress do you think is greater - not seeing the GP or the stress of going to court and all the hassle that requires?

3. If you fail to get GP rights, you have likely severed any potential relationship permanently. Do you really want to take that risk?

Realistically, the state is always going to give the parents the favour of the law, unless there's abuse or something going on. That's how families are supposed to work.

One reason for going non contact has been highlighted by Nonnie DancesWithOtters; the insistence of their partner. For some, that is the only reason they need.

To have any hope of success through the courts, the GP's need to prove they had an established relationship with their GC prior to being cut out.

For those of us who've never known our GC we're doomed before we even begin. That said, a legal route was never something we'd have done but I do understand why some feel compelled to try.

Devastatedgranny.

Bibbity I think you will find that the children have a right to a family life. It is their rights which are important and if they are denied one side of their family then they are being denied their rights.

You’ve must read that. A family life by law is the parnetal unit.
A safe, loving and nourishing environment.

GPs have no rights. Because once again aunts, uncles and cousins are family. So why are GPs any different to them.

My husband has cut off his mother. Our children still have his brothers and cousins. I doubt they have any memory of her now.

They have a very big family. Missing one GP is not depriving them of anything.

Bibbity has it not occurred to you that the parent might be the issue?

No one is suggested that any law be changed against parents but the law is that the children have rights not the parents. My MP said that the emphasis has changed and there is now a presumption that grandparents should see the children unless there is a good reason why not.

If the GP has evidence of the parent's intransigence and the parent has no evidence against the GP what do you think the court would say?

The parents will have their reasons. And those are not always able to be proven in law.

Why the hell should a parent have to get evidence?

It could be emotional harm, it could be that the parent takes issue with something that happened in their childhood.

But no one should be forced around someone they hate. They would have every instinct in the body telling them to protect their child from that.

Tough. It’s just tough. Parents DO have rights. Children do have rights. GPs do not and should not.

Because you have yet to answer my question of why anuties, uncles and cousins shouldn’t have rights if GPs do. They are all equal.

No Bibbity parents do not have rights it is the children who have all the rights. You do seem rather blinkered. What happened in the parents childhood should not be allowed to harm the children. I haven't answered the question about other relatives by explaining the only ones to have rights are the children!

Why would the parent be "forced around someone they hate."? I don't think anyone has suggested that the parents have to be "around someone they hate" it is about the children's rights to a family life. That is the law. Can you imagine the situation of a white Christian woman denying her DH's Asian Muslim family a right to their GC? How would that be fair? Children had a right to their heritage.

Parents do have rights. The right to decide what school they go to, the right to make medical decisions, the right to decide what religion they follow etc etc.

Of course it should!! If a parent failed their child then of course that adult child will protect their children from the same failings. It’s somethign frequently discussed on parenting forums and why CO can sometimes appear to come out of no where. Because it takes them years to process what happened.

Of course they do. Infant babies are not separated from their parents. No parent would drop off their small child to a stranger or someone they themselves do not trust.

.....well that’s a bit ridiculous as that would be a fight between the parents. If she has grounds then she could absolutely block access and that would be her right.
Heritage would not come into it if she had good grounds.

Sorry Bibbity parents have no rights they have responsibilities, there is a difference and I have checked it out.

But we are not talking about the "same failings" are we? You are assuming the GP is doing something wrong, why?

I didn't say anything about "infant babies" I spoke about children.

Yes, but we are not talking about someone with 'grounds' we are talking about the children's heritage.

Why do you assume all GPs are wrong and all parents are perfect? I am trying to have a rational discussion here.

Oh my goodness do you think things are getting out of hand here. Poor devastatedgranny. I think like MissAdventure said we have to agree to disagree.

Nonnie

My GFIL physically abused his children and sexually abused his daughter. Yet FIL practically idolized him and brought his children around to see him. I think what happened in FIL's childhood is extremely relevant to the case. Should Hubby and his siblings and cousins have been around GFIL? He didn't even like small children and would go into a towering rage if they disturbed his football game.

If a GP abused their children the children shouldn't be around them. They are not safe. If the GPs are unkind to the parents the GC shouldn't be around them. They are not "do-over" babies.

Don’t understand your advice Dave? The Mum, would like contact with her grandchild, how does that disrespect her son. Having said that, there is a breakdown in communication which has resulted in this decision. My initial reaction, would be to leave well alone. May be there is a mediator in the family who would be allowed to pass on gifts and messages.