Son says only way i can see his child is court

" The fact is the parents get to decide who interacts and is involved with their children."

Totally agree with Bibbity on this statement.

One can keep banging their against a brick wall all they want, and argue that parents do have/have no rights etc. but that WON'T change the FACT that rights/no rights parents are the gatekeepers to their children - and regardless of this rights/responsibilities argument, they will have the FINAL say on what's best for their children.

Again, what's important to/for you (as a non-parental figure) may not be important in any way to the child's parents. And if the parents do for ANY REASON deem your so called "important issue," as being totally baseless and irrelevant to the foundation of their family unit, then guess what - your " very important belief/idea," suffers a very quick and forgettable death. So at the end of the day you can argue against rights vs. responsibilities till the cows come home, and console oneself by believing that parents have no rights - but that won't change the manner in which both parents decide to run their household or raise their children as they see fit and believe is best for their children. And the harsh truth is that there's nothing that a non-parental figure can do about the FIT choices that a parent makes for their children. Parents cannot and will not be forced to raise their children in a manner that a non-parental figure thinks/believes is best for children that are not theirs.

That's true

PARENTAL RIGHTS & Responsibilities

You know because the PARENTS have BOTH rights and responsibilities.

The fact is the parents get to decide who interacts and is involved with their children.
Their reasons for doing so is no ones business. Each parent does what they believe is right for their child. Like arseholes everyone owns an opinion however that child is the parents and as so until a time that that child is released into the world the parents will make pretty much all decisions on their behalf.
Unless they are absuive the rest of the populous can but out.

Yes Nonnie I know I am right. The Children Act was a major part of my clinical practice for many years before I retired.

Banging my head against a brick wall here because 2 people refuse to listen or read what I say. One has even looked it up for herself online and still argues the case.

Izabella, Iam & Smile have all made the point I made but there's non so deaf as those who will not hear. They have accused me of being a GP who is cut off based upon nothing other than their imagination. It makes me wonder if their vehemence is based on what they are doing to their children's relations but I will not make such an accusation, just continue to wonder.

When you have made a valid point several times and been backed up by other rational adults there seems little point in continuing wasting time.

Devastatedgranny
Catch 22 re courts, I waited 3 months, tried everything to reconcile. I knew if I left it any longer to go to court, time it actually got to court, it would then be said that the GC don't know me anymore, and this was said even though it had been 'just' 9mnths. As I said on your other thread, I bitterly regret going to court and can now see I should have just kept quiet and hoped.

I was cut out for nothing, aside from loving my precious GD with all of my heart & soul, along with my GS & DD, this incurred the jealousy of my GD's stepdad & his mother. Into the 7th year now

I don't understand why some don't seem to understand when discussing the Children Act that it's the rights of the children that are paramount.

The right for children to know their extended family; GP's, aunts, uncles etc etc. A parent who denies their child that right because they themselves don't want contact with extended family members, and where there has been no abuse of any kind either to the parent of that child or the child, is denying that child's basic right.

Being able to do a thing isn't the same as having the right to do it.

Yes, Isabella.
The emphasis in the Children Act is to ensure the welfare of the children is the Courts primary focus.
The Court recognises the significance of family members or other individuals with whom the child has significant relationship with. This will always include the mother and father, siblings and other adults who are important in the life of the child.
That may include grandparent but only where the grandparents have been key figures in the child’s life. That is particularly relevant in public, rather than private law.

Firstly it is called The Children Act 1989 (no S) and it gives parents responsibilities and duties. The children themselves have rights.

A grandmother would not normally have the right to allow a childhood immunisation for example as it is the parents who have the responsibilities and duties i.e. PARENTAL responsibility.

The above Act is UK law

Nonnie

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

You're actually did suggest/insinuate exactly that when you mentioned, and I quote (again) - "Can you imagine the situation of a white Christian woman denying her DH's Asian Muslim family a RIGHT to their GC? " - so if you did'nt suggest that whose denied rights are we imagining? GC or adults?

FACT remains that Parents are the FIRST to have the power/right to act on behalf of their children and ensure that their childrens rights are protected and respected. As such parents use their legally granted rights (not responsibilities but RIGHTS) to carry out their RESPONSIBILITIES by making decisions in place of their children.

Stop trying to make it look like you've been misunderstood. No - I clearly understood your flawed facts very loud and clear. So when you say: "My point (which some seem unable to grasp) is that children have a legal right to family life." - how exactly does this coverup "point," factor into the fact that you'd previously said:

1). Parents have no rights they have responsibilities, there is a difference and I have checked it out." - There's no Government web page that backs up your claim for its NOT true. Again, can you reference the direct link you're reading this from?

2). "but the law is that the children have rights not the parents." Again which law? And where is it?

How do any of those two statements make any sense or even relate to your supposed point above? Which according to you, some seem unable to grasp? Trying to make it seem that you've been misunderstood you're clearly deflecting and running around in circles.

3). "children have a legal right to family life." - Ok! We KNOW that, and this wasn't a point that was up for dispute either. But the legal use of the term "family life," only includes the parents and their children. So once again what's your point exactly? AND when you said, "Can you imagine the situation of a white Christian woman denying her DH's Asian Muslim family a RIGHT to their GC?" Yes I can totally imagine that happening - but what I simply can't imagine is what "rights," the DH's Asian Muslim family would have over the said GC? - especially with you arguing vehemently that parents have no rights? If parents have no rights why would you ask us to possibly imagine a situation where extended family were denied a "right," to their GC. What right Nonnie? Kindly elaborate (without deflection) these imaginary rights that grandparents would have to their GC but that parents done have over their own children?

4). "Perhaps you have checked on the law and realise that what I say is correct."- No you're wrong. But if you want to believe that you're right that's fine too. Your entitled to believe in anything that you want. That doesn't make your personal beliefs/misinterpretation of the law an arguable fact.

5). "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." - A right to family life that's provided by the parents whom like I said have the FIRST LEGALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to act on behalf of their children and to ensure that their childrens rights are respected - Not sure why/how you can't seem to understand this.

Parents don't have rights! The most ridiculous statement I've heard so far this a 2019, more especially for you're arguing, you're arguing, deflecting and calling posters who are trying to correct you as "ranters."

Parents have rights period!

27mommy it seems pretty clear to me and I’m not in the UK. Parental responsibilities include duties and rights, and parents are charged with protecting their children from harm. Sometimes, that requires severing relationships between extended family and the child. Assuming they are fit parents, odds are quite high any parent that does that has a very good reason, one that should be respected. As I suggested to devastatedgranny originally. Perhaps if more grandparents respected their children’s parenting decisions there would be fewer estranged grannies fanning about. Just a thought ??‍♀️

This is directly from the Children's Act.
In this Act “parental responsibility” means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.

So tell me again how parents don't have rights to their children, when the exact act yoy keep referencing blatantly states otherwise.

Bibbity no, you are wrong. I never said grandparents had rights why would I when I said parents have responsibilities not rights? I have always said that it is the children who have the rights. Perhaps you should read the first paragraph of your link, it might help you to understand. You should also read the government page properly rather than just the headline.

Thank you smile & Iam for you ability to read, understand and state the simple truth. It is very frustrating to be ranted at by people who have not done so.

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.

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

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

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.

Sorry she’s wrong?

So where does it actually say GPs?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)