Son says only way i can see his child is court

Foxyloxy

I wouldn't suggest a mediator. That puts another person in an uncomfortable position. I've been in that position when my sister broke off contact with my parents. I heard about the conflict from both sides. She later reconciled but has broken off contact again. I've said I am not getting in the middle. OP and her son are adults. They need to discuss their issues as adults. The only third party should be a professional counsellor or mediator.

Definitely get legal advice, from Citizens Advice if you're not well off. I have heard that the situations regarding grandparents'access legally is improving, and there is wider awareness of the important role of grandparents and their rights.

If all else fails, sometimes you have to go legal. My daughter has custody of her son, but allows regular visits to his dad, as he was abusive to her but not the child. He has married again to a nice girl, seems happy, and has a daughter, so far it's working. We see our grandson a lot, and I'm not boasting when I say he loves coming here and loves us. If something happened to my daughter and he took over custody, and refused to let us see our grandson, I would go to court. Politely. But definitely, if I couldn't talk him round.

I visited the Mumsnet site last night to try to understand why AC cut contact with their parents. It was an eye opener to see the discussion from that perspective. It is sad to see such polarisation between both views. It's as though there's a power battle going on between the generations. I found with my own mother I had to set the boundaries again and again plus have the confidence to say what I needed.

Sorry I forgot to add that I am estranged from my own son who has mental health issues but do look after my grandson.

Nonnie

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

Huh? Rights and responsibilities are two very different things. Not sure what world you live in, but you sound utterly ridiculous by saying that parents have no rights. Now this may be your personal belief and I'd respect that - but the fact that you choose to personally believe that parents have no rights does not necessarily make that a universally acceptable fact. FACT remains that each country and/or state has its own laws that govern parental rights AND responsibilities (again two vastly different things) - and legally parents may lose their legal rights to a child if a court decides terminate these rights. So to say that parents have no rights is something that seemingly exists in your own world.

Examples of parental RIGHTS:

1. A RIGHT to legal custody - allowing them to make major decisions about their child's health, education, and religious upbringing.

2. A RIGHT to physical custody.

3. A RIGHT to pass property to their children e.g. via inheritance etc.

Alternatively, parents are legally RESPONSIBLE for meeting their children's basic needs. e.g. food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education.

The two (Rights vs. Responsibilities) are therefore NOT the same and on can't argue that parents have no rights but have responsibilities. Take for example a father (or mother) who chooses not to be in their minor child's life. Based on such a choice, they may further lack any physical or legal custody of the said child, and as such wouldn't have any RIGHT to make medical/educational decisions that pertain to this child - but a court of law would still expect him to meet his parental RESPONSIBILITIES and order him to pay child support if the child's mother file for it, and is deemed eligible to receive it.

Never heard such a thing like parts have no rights and to say so is a completely baseless argument. You can argue about this all day and night but whether or not you accept it, the FACT remains that parents not only have rights, but had rights that are protected by the law.

Also for the OP - It's one thing to be estranged from one AC. But when more than one of your AC are estranged from you - both of whom restrict your access to their children, then maybe you as the parent have to take a step back and do some self reflection.

Nonnie

" but the law is that the children have rights not the parents." - Which law? Very kindly reference the said law. I'm very curious to read it.

"Can you imagine the situation of a white Christian woman denying her DH's Asian Muslim family a RIGHT to their GC? " - Huh? So according to you parents by law have no rights, but in this example you gave DHs family somehow have some rights?

"it is about the children's rights to a family life. That is the law. " - Again which law is this?

Where are you getting all these weird laws from?

LiveLaugh I get my information from the government website where do you get yours? I'm sorry you don't understand that the parents have responsibilities rather than rights but that is the law in the UK.

I have never suggested any adult had rights, please read what I actually said before you rant about what I didn't say.

agnurse I had a bad childhood it didn't make me do the same to my children. I would have done anything to protect them but we are not talking about bad GPs here. I am talking about a parent alienating the children against one side of their family when no wrong has been done. My point (which some seem unable to grasp) is that children have a legal right to family life. That does not mean that one parent can cut them off from family they love and who love them. Such behaviour is nasty and controlling and not in the interest of the children.

Nonnie is clearly one of the grandparents not allowed to see GC and from her responses on her, I can see why!

DIL17 I don't think that your responses show any evidence that you have read what I said and it does make me wonder if you are one of the mothers who is unreasonably withholding access to your children. Only because of the way you have interpreted my posts as people who do that are normally expressing the way their minds work rather that the person they refer to.

Perhaps you have checked on the law and realise that what I say is correct. I have opinions on things I know the facts of without being personally affected by whatever the situation is, do you?

I don't think anything Nonnie has said suggests that she is an estranged grandparent. She may or may not be, I don't think that she has said.

Thanks Madgran I do find some people on here jump to conclusions which suit their agenda. No, I have never suggested I was in that position. Of course that doesn't stop me knowing what the law is.

No expert here, but I feel if you go down the legal route, you have already lost. Trying to look at it unemotionally and taking the human aspect to one side, “it’s like saying I like your toy, so I must be allowed to play with it”. Truly sorry, I’m not trying to over simplify. The child is his, and as a parent he has total control. Back off, and see if there is a relative or friend who can mediate. Don’t be pushy or apportion blame. In other words be in control. Painful for you, without a doubt.

Nonnie, so in your thinking my children have to have a relationship with my parents, even though one of them was very abusive to me growing up and they are still together? How is that in the children's best interest? I'm sure they will "love" my children in the same way that they "loved" me. Isn't it rather my right as a parent to decide who gets to interact with my children and in your words my responsibility to ensure that they are safe. Also wouldn't a parent of the child be a better judge what would be in the child's best interest than an extended family member (which is what grandparents are)

27mommy where did you get that idea from? I have never said abusive gps should see the children.

No, I don't think that all parents are best to judge, most yes, but not all, some are simply nasty and vindictive and their reasons for denying access are nothing to do with the children.

I don't know why you don't understand that parents have no rights, in law they have responsibilities. It is children who, in law, have a right to family life. To deny them access to one side of their family for no good reason is wrong.

I'm sorry you jump to conclusions without properly reading the posts. It doesn't contribute to rational discussion.

Sigh. The Goverment website actually says “Rights and Responsibilities” becaus eparents have BOTH.

The parents reasons whatever they are are enough.

The reason could be “I don’t like the type of person you are and what to protect myself and my family from you”

Good enough. Because as pp have said. It’s theie children and they call the shots. The previous generation had a turn.

And by law their family life includes their parents and siblings and that is it. Grandparents are not part of the legal definition of family life. They are extended relatives. Once you go down the legal route you nuke the bridge and will likely never have a relationship with those children. If my parents sued me for access to my children I would fight to the ends of the earth and even move if I had to. They would never be laying eyes on my children until the children are over the age of 18.

Suggest bibbity that you look at the government website again and read beyond the headline. You won't see any mention of rights there. Always a good idea to read things properly before commenting on them.

27 mommy you are mistaken.

So the government has put “Rights and Responsibilities” in the heading but parents do not posses ANY rights to their Munro children?

? I’m going to stop beating this dead horse now. It’s just laughable.

Sorry she’s wrong?

So where does it actually say GPs?

Actually Nonnie you are mistaken. If you are going to spout off about legal rights, you might want to check if you are legally correct. If you check that link Bibbity just posted you would notice that family life is defined as PARENTS of minor children.

Under The Children Act, children have a right to know their extended family. That is the starting point; the rights of the children.

As Smileless says, the law in England is under the Children Act. It gives parents responsibilities and duties and children have rights.

The children’s act at present Does not include extended family. There was call to include aunts, uncles, cousins etc but this was never passed. Mainly due to the push back from parents.