Kept from grands I need advice

I know what you're saying Momof3dragons (lol I love the name) but if they are successfully keeping her away 365 days of the year, which they are, they would be just as successful at keeping her away 364-and-a-half days and letting her visit for just a few hours.

Readymeals- except she doesn’t stay away. That’s the point. You are assuming that something that has already been tried (simply lessening visits a bit) will work if they try again. OP seems to be totally incapable of giving even a little- it’s all or everything for her. So the son and his family rightly pulled away to protect the integrity of their nuclear family. I believe that if OP was given even an hour she would be so insufferable, clingy, weepy, full of demands that it would be impossible. A nice visit would turn into an embarrassment at best.
In the perfect world OP would do some quiet intospection and realize that she is not entitled to her grandkids, that she has no say in the raising of them, and that she is in the wrong forcing herself in where she isn’t wanted.
But I doubt she will ever get it. So she will never see her grandchildren, or her son, again.

Momof3dragons, I agree but the forecast that you make is not inevitable. The children's parents could keep in touch via letters and cards maybe once a week without fail, and then when the children can write they can write the communications themselves.This would be a good lesson for the children not only simply writing their news, but perhaps more importantly teaching the children the value of kindness and beneficence.

Picture a parallel universe in which Immagamma, when asked to stop pushing her unsolicited parenting advice, had said “OK, sorry” and stopped doing it.

Picture a parallel universe in which Immagamma, when asked to stop just dropping, by, had waited for her son to call and suggest a visit. In which she didn’t take a few declined invitations as proof that she HAD to disregard the prior request not to drop by uninvited.

Picture a parallel universe in which Immagamma realized that “how things were done” when she grew up and how she raised her children has absolutely no bearing on how her son and DIL raise their children or how they choose to do things. That “that’s just what family does” is a meaningless statement because families are not all the same, and apparently this family doesn’t do it the way Immagamma thinks they should.

Imagine a world in which Immagamma didn’t cast spiteful aspersions on her DIL’s mental health because her DIL didn’t want unsolicited parenting advice and wanted space from her overbearing MIL.

In that parallel universe, Immagamma very well has a decent relationship with her son and DIL and regular contact with her grandchildren.

This OP singlehandedly torpedoed the relationship with her son’s family. Period. No amount of “but she should be able to do whatever she wants because Reasons” is going to change that. It didn’t have to be this way. The fact that it is this way is entirely Immagamma’s doing.

Honestly, I think the only way this relationship could be salvaged is if, via a lot of counseling, Immagamma comes to realize that she caused this. Perhaps then she could write to her son, acknowledging where she went wrong and genuinely apologizing. Then leave it to son and DIL to make contact if they so choose. And for goodness sake, stop with the unwanted contact (that’s harassment, you know) and the Bible verses (that’s just creepy, you know).

But she’s not there. It doesn’t sound like she’ll ever be there.

Seconding Toodlepip. And adding that I don't think Immagamma wanted advice. I think she wanted "sympathy" and head patting. Grandparents need to realize that the world has changed. Their access to grandchildren is through the parents, and it's only as stable as their relationship to the parents. The relationship with the parents is the bridge if you will, between the grandparent's generation and the grandchildren's generation.

I don't know why prior generations don't seem able to wrap their brain around this. When they were parents, I'm betting they wouldn't willingly have facilitated relationships between their own children and people who constantly second guessed them, gave unsolicited advice, or interfered with their parenting. At least not ones that weren't related. In prior generations, often being related entitled you to commit a lot of abuse without ever being challenged. What current generations of parents have learned (often through great personal suffering) is that blood relation does NOT mean you must endure abuse without comment and without protecting yourself.

Yes, I'm using the word abuse. Because that's what it is when you deny someone their autonomy, their personhood, their free will and their self-determination. I think in prior generations there's this odd blind spot where they think accusations of being abusive, or passive aggressive, or overbearing couldn't possibly be true because they LOVE their adult children, grandchildren, etc. They believe that if they feel love towards their family members there's no way they could really HURT them, and thus all these "boundaries", complaining, pushback and attempts to explain must be just a lot of hot air and tantrums over not getting their own way.

My theory currently is that the reason prior generations can't SEE that loving one's family does not prevent you from abusing them is because they were brainwashed into that viewpoint by their own parents. Also, children's viewpoint was not a consideration in prior generations and that could extend well into adulthood. If this treatment was good enough for granny it's good enough for her kids and grandkids too.

Thankfully, current generations are learning/have learned that blood does not excuse bad treatment. In some ways I feel quite sad for the prior generations because what they are left with is that what they had to tolerate (having their parents try to run their lives and raise their kids for them) will no longer be tolerated. On a deep level that probably hurts a lot. It's just that that hurt is NOT AN EXCUSE for continuing to try to steamroll over their children and parent their grandchildren. Nor is it an excuse for continuing to be blind to the damage their attitudes cause.

Some will rage and jump up and down on the bridge till it gets rickety and collapses. Some just stand on the near side and shout curses. Some just walk right out onto it, drop an hand grenade and pray.....

And some did all of the things that you SparklySyesMom and Toodlepip have posted about, and get cut out anyway.

Sparkle People of "prior generations" were not some amorphous mass....there were different approaches then just as there are now in many different kinds of families!!

I know that there are people out there who CO extended family for imagined slights. I’m not so narrow minded as to think all estranged grandparents are evil narc manipulators. But I’ve spent some time reading other posts here and one of the biggest thing that stood out is that A LOT if not most of these estranged grannies have a very difficult, if not impossible time, understanding that their “children” are not children anymore. They are adults and therefore your peers. Full stop. They don’t owe you loyalty or respect, especially if they get so respect (as functioning adults) back. That also goes hand in hand with realizing that their adult child is not an extension of themselves, that their traditions/religious views aren’t automatically shared.
If some of you had just accepted that maybe you wouldn’t be in the position you are in now. You think your adult child owes something to you, that they should obey you still. It just doesn’t work that way.
The OP telling her son “enough is enough” is how I speak to my 5 year old. That isn’t how you speak to an adult. What can the OP do? Ground him? Spank him? Take away his toys? No. She has no power here, so she is flopping about like a landed fish. And the more she, and the rest of you, push and push be deeper into your grave you dig yourself because you cannot force another adult to play your game your way. If anything you will find yourself at the receiving end of a well deserved RO.
I’ve learned a lot about what not to do when I become a grandmother. I plan on traveling a lot, learn how to crochet, volunteer at animal shelters, binge watch all the shows I’ve missed due to Sesame Street playing in a loop for a thousand years. Reconnect with my husband. Take a class. Learn how to make world class chili. Grow orchard and Venus fly traps. Adopt a huge dog. Not chase after rainbows.

"And some did all of the things that you SparklySyesMom and Toodlepip have posted about, and get cut out anyway."

And that's a shame, Smileless2012, but that is completely different from what we're dealing with with Instagramma.

It's not up to anyone to decide how much poison her son and DIL should allow their children or how often they should have it. (And yes, I think a grandmother who calls their mother mentally ill for gasp! having boundaries is harmful, like poison.) There is NO REASON the children (or the adults) should have to put up with IG's antics periodically just because she's related. If she really wanted a relationship as badly as she says she does, she would make the changes necessary for her to be a positive part of their family. However, she's more concerned with being right "in her own eyes" than being happy.

Oh, and to PP who was talking about "cold hate," I think you underestimate the importance of people who are CO. From my experience, most people don't hate the people they CO, at least not long term; they simply cease to matter.

Momof3dragons wrote:

"I’ve learned a lot about what not to do when I become a grandmother. I plan on traveling a lot, learn how to crochet, volunteer at animal shelters, binge watch all the shows I’ve missed due to Sesame Street playing in a loop for a thousand years. Reconnect with my husband. Take a class. Learn how to make world class chili. Grow orchard and Venus fly traps. Adopt a huge dog. Not chase after rainbows."

So did I. I am 86. It works.

I’ve learned a lot about what not to do when I become a grandmother. I plan on traveling a lot, learn how to crochet, volunteer at animal shelters, binge watch all the shows I’ve missed due to Sesame Street playing in a loop for a thousand years. Reconnect with my husband. Take a class. Learn how to make world class chili. Grow orchard and Venus fly traps. Adopt a huge dog. Not chase after rainbows."

However Immagamma is stuck in a time warp where she is fixated with ascribed status and has not accepted the modern need to earn respect. This social change is causing a good woman to suffer and make unwise decisions.

( Ascribed status and achieved status)

Great Alexa !! Well said and well done !!

I was almost sympathetic there....until you mentioned the bible quotations. Now I think YOU'RE the one who has the mental illness.

I don't think it's a very good idea or very acceptable to refer to people's religious beliefs as a mental illness.

Not anyone’s religious belief,but the way in which they use it to get their own way or to coerce others, perhaps?

I notice the OP speaks for God, in her original post. He does not like her estranged family because they won’t do what she wants.

Delusional at least.

There are many who say that all religious beliefs are delusions... However, it is generally current etiquette not to say so.

But Eglantine, coercing is what religiosity does, it divides people into them and us. Immagamma in her distress uses religiosity for moral support . We all need a crutch.

I believe in 'rising above' whenever possible. It's the strong who can 'rise above'. The family are all banded together against Immagamma and that is what I despise ; that people in the stronger position cannot be nice to a weaker outsider. Grans have well explained how annoying Immagamma's behaviour has been and her behaviour is not sufficient reason to drive Immagamma round the bend with worry and despair.

Oh well, my belief is that people should take the consequences of the choices that they make. Not expect other people to constantly accommodate their wants and behaviour. The religion of personal responsibility.

We’ll have to differ on that one!

I agree Alexa that it's about 'rising above'. Whereas I can understand that the OP's son and his wife may well have found her behaviour on occasion both intrusive and annoying, that's not a good enough reason to completely cut the poor woman out of theirs and their children's lives.

I too despise the way family members have banded together against her. It's cruel and unnecessary. Knowing that they are seeing her son and GC must be unbearable.

Smileless2012

Two things here:

1. The OP has insisted that she has "rights" to the grandchildren. That alone is enough to invite a CO from most people given that anyone who insists on "rights" is, essentially, indicating that they may consider a court case. The goal is to give them no ammo. Grandparents who truly care about their grandchildren as people don't insist on rights.

2. The relationships the extended family have with OP's son and GC are none of OP's business. Full stop. I get the impression you feel that the extended family are sitting around all day laughing at OP. I highly doubt that to be the case.

3. At what point do you consider her behaviour has warranted a CO? This is a recap of everything she has done:
a. Complained that once or twice a month was not enough for visits
b. Came over unannounced with another person with her.
c. Insisted she had rights to the GC.
d. Insisted on continuing contact after she was given a no contact letter.
e. Took it upon herself to locate their address after they moved and it was not given to her.
f. Insists that her DIL is mentally ill and insists on sending them Bible verses to prove they are in the wrong.

If it were anyone other than a grandmother, that person would be defined as a stalker. Loving grandparents don't do that. They don't demonstrate an example of selfishness by putting their wants over their grandchildren's needs. Please explain to me why the OP needs to see the GC more than once or twice a month, why she needs their home address if they have chosen not to give it to her, and why she needs to meet her youngest grandchild. Please don't mention anything about the grandchildren's rights to know their grandmother. She's made it very clear that this is more about her than this is about her grandchildren.

Agnurse wrote:

"Grandparents who truly care about their grandchildren as people don't insist on rights."

People who insist upon rights are people who are already in weak social positions. If the OP had achieved affection and support and some straight talking from her relatives she'd not have to bother with something boring like legal rights whatever those may be.

Grans are well unanimous that the OP has behaved unwisely. That is not in question. What I do object to is the OTT response to her behaviour. A noisy quarrel or two or three though unpleasant would have been preferable to this cold legality.

What I have in mind is e.g. "We want you and love you but are having a shower: visiting old friends of our own age: going riding and you can't ride: having some private time together: going shopping for necessities and you slow us down: got diarrhoea: etc. etc.

She saw them once or twice a month and said that wasn't enough. She was included. It's only when she became
unreasonable and demanded more and showed up unannounced that she was cut off.

agnurse you constantly refer to 'normal' and 'loving' parents and GP's when criticising P's and GP's who are upset at not being included in their AC'sand GC's lives.

The OP's behaviour is no more unreasonable or demanding that that of her son and his wife. They unreasonably demand that she have nothing to do with them and their children. They unreasonably demand that she accept their decision. They unreasonably demand that she simply accept that other family members are made welcome when she is the only one being excluded.

She was not a cruel and abusive mother, she is not a cruel and abusive GM. If she were, why would her son who has cut her out tell her he should be a better son? If she were, why would she have had a relationship with her son up until he married and had children of his own?

"It was only when she became unreasonable and demanded more and showed up unannounced that she was cut off". If parents only have to be unreasonable, demanding and show up unannounced to be cut off by their own AC then heaven help us all.

You're not estranged are you. You haven't been cut out of your AC's life and the lives of your children. You have absolutely no idea of how traumatic an experience it is. What it's like spend the rest of your life with this living bereavement.

I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion, of course you are. But before you talk so glibly about a parent being cut out, for the reasons stated by the OP, perhaps you should take a moment and try to imagine what it's like to know that your own child never wants anything to do with you ever again. Perhaps you should take a moment and try to imagine what it's like to know you have GC that you'll never meet, never know what they look like, never know what their voices sound like and never hear them laugh.

We don't see FIL because he's a narcissist. I would hope that I would have a good enough relationship with my children and be reasonable enough to abide by their wishes and not end up in a position of being CO. My parents are currently CO from my sister and her husband (sister and BIL's choice). My parents have simply chosen to accept the estrangement. They would like to have some contact, but recognize that this is not likely. They've chosen not to position their entire lives on the premise of being estranged.

You would also be astounded at how many times people have responded positively to their abusers. It's a common phenomenon known as Stockholm Syndrome. FIL is a classic example of this. We hear all about "St. GFIL of blessed memory" while in reality the man physically and emotionally abused all of his children, sexually abused one of them, and emotionally abused his grandchildren. It's also been documented that often people who have been the victims of abuse can be in a FOG - Fear, Obligation, Guilt. They may not recognize that the behaviour of their parent(s) is abnormal because that's all they know. It's why the majority of abusers were once abused themselves. It's their normal.

You cannot base how toxic or non-toxic a relationship is solely by the fact that two people choose to engage in the relationship. For example, many women choose to stay in abusive situations simply because they are afraid of what will happen if they leave the abuser - and they may be legitimately afraid. Just because the son "wants to be a good son" and they had a "good relationship before DIL" doesn't mean the relationship was healthy. It's possible the son never had the tools to stand up for himself until DIL came along and helped him to see that his mother's behaviour was smothering and unhealthy.

We only have the OP's version of events. Yet from her very own version, most of us can see that she has been overbearing and intrusive in her son's relationship.
I wonder how things would look from the son's and DiL's point of view.