This Morning - totally one sided fucking slot on Grandparents being denied contact

[trashcanjunkie]

God I'm fuming watching this. This Morning have done a section on parents denying contact to the grandparents. The whole thing has focused on how cruel and unfair it is for parents to do it. They've had a succession of gps on who've had contact cut. They made NO FUCKING attempt to acknowledge the thousands of people who felt they had no choice than to go nc as the relationship with gps was/is utterly toxic and no matter what they tried it always would be.

VIP- but it wasn't unfair to gps who are unfairly cut out.

Same as any other subject. It was what it was and nothing else.
It wasn't about your family.

I didn't see the programme. But I have to say, once upon a time, before I came across MN, all my sympathies were with grandparents denied contact with their grandchildren.

But then I joined MN, and some of the stories about grandparents are just horrific and ALL my sympathies in those cases are with the parents of the child. Some GPs are just horribly toxic, malicious and you wouldn't a child within a million miles of them. So I've changed my views.

I, of course, am an exemplary grandparent [polishing halo face!] of five adorable kids, whom I love to bits and (I think) they love me. I also love my son in law and daughter in law, and every day thank my lucky stars that my dear daughter and dear son have such wonderful spouses. But I have SO much sympathy for MNs who suffer from frigtful parents, ILs, whom they don't want near their precious children. From what I've read during my MN years, don't blame them - who'd want such ghastly people in their kids' lives?

I assume the TV programme being discussed here didn't look at that side of the 'grandparents' coin?

I actually sometimes wonder if some grandparents think that they have as many 'rights' to a child as a parent. I know in my case me being the mother is given very little weight. They often say horrible things to me and then say oh you have to comply with what we want because otherwise you are not thinking of the children. It's blackmail really.

and like you sarah that's the tip of an iceberg, I could go on seamlessly for days.

Yes, my mother and stepfather would say they were unfairly cut off and it has caused them massive anguish. They are Daily Mail reading, upstanding, middle class, 'look down on everyone else' kind of people.

What they would not say is that it was due to me confronting my mother about my childhood abuse which has caused me massive mental health issues, she then cut me off reiterating that it was all my fault so I have told her not to contact her DC's while she has labelled me as a 'loony' to everyone in the family. Surely not the best environment for my DCs to be in?

My children are my father's only grandchildren. He has never met them and never will as he cares as much about them as about me when he abandoned me at the age of 4.

I did not see the programme but it would have been much better journalism if they had had parents on the other side of the coin.

I have told her not to contact my DC's

FIL was horribly abusive to DH, but DH wanted to give him a chance when DS was born (his first grandchild).
He arrived empty-handed, didn't remember DS's name, never touched or held him (because apparently babies are blind at 4 months old so it is not worth holding them) and treated our house like a B&B.
DH threw him out.
FIL then sent a card asking for an apology. Then nothing. It has been 7 years. He has never met his granddaughters. The truth is he can't be bothered.
Yet he tells everyone I am a bitch who manipulates his son and stops him from seeing his family.

Very few people would willingly cut contact with grandparents so there has to be more to their story than they are letting on. However, I can see why a single parent might not be too keen on the in-laws having contact outside of the ex's contact time - that could make the grandparents sad I suppose. Families are so busy with both parents working long hours that weekends are wind-down/chore time, leaving less time for family visits I suppose.

I think a more relevant story would be one on grandparents who feel they are forced to see their grandchildren too much ... by being pressured to provide free, full time childcare.

My IL are toxic. They are not in our lives because DH has chosen that due to the way they treated him, then me and then our ds1 who was 2 at the time.

If you asked them, they would say they had no idea why he made that decision - yet they have had numerous phone calls, face to face meetings and letters in the years before he made that decision in an attempt to smooth things over.

Not all GP are nice people I'm afraid. So really, it should be the parents decision, unless there are some other kind of circumstances. Ultimately, most parents want the best for their child. DH knows his parents far better than me and has decided that the best for our children is them not seeing his parents. In all these matters it should be the children's best interest at heart, and most of the time, that's what parents do.

FIL was horribly abusive to DH, but DH wanted to give him a chance when DS was born (his first grandchild).

Yep, same story here. We're giving FIL only one chance and he had better be on his best behavior with her.

But luckily for us FIL has shaped up quite a bit in the last few years. I think he's realized his ways are making him friendless and alone, he's started to get a couple that he talks to regularly so I think he's doing much better. He was at the hospital for DD and gave her a welcome blanket.

We keep in contact and I text him pictures.

But DH is adamant that FIL will never be allowed to be alone with DD. I'm ok with that as he's handicapped and in a wheel chair anyway. (No offense to wheelchair MNers, but he's just not capable of watching a baby or energetic toddler).

Those people worrying about grandparents having rights, isn't it the case that they are allowed to apply for visits if they can prove that they played a significant role in the life of the child and it is in the child's best interest?

So if the gp did weekly child minding then the parents divorced it would be best for the child to still have contact with the gp. Again, it seems to be based in how best to support the child. People who end up on TV with a sob story probably don't have the right situation to mean that they can appeal for visits, which strongly implies that they aren't quite so involved living and innocent as they are saying.

kickassangel has just said what I was going to having read most of the thread.
I didn't see the programme but it is possible that there are GPs out there who have been cut from their GCs lives and it is massively upsetting.
My FIL has done childcare for all the family local to him for the last 13 years. This has been weekly care and in the holidays is even more. One of his children is now getting divorced, he is hugely concerned for his relationship with this set of GCs. He won't do anything silly about it but he has been a huge part of these kids lives for 9 years.
I think (to be fair there may already be) something to protect these kind of relationships. No he had no involvement in the choice to have these children but the parents have since chosen to heavily involve him.
I think when it's no contact as a result of a divorce it gets very messy just like everything in a divorce but that shouldn't be an excuse to hinder access to family members who have significant influence in children's lives.
Hope some of thy makes sense, I've woken up far too early!!

Mulling this over a bit more I remembered what happened when my db and his xw split. For a long time she attempted to be quite controlling about my parents and their access to gc. My dp had been good enough for weekly unpaid childcare for years but suddenly xsil wouldn't let db leave her alone with them at all. Not because of them but as a way to control db.

Fortunately db and dp decided to suck it up. Db was determined not to be absent and dp were willing to play the long game. When xsil needed childcare and had no option but my dp she used them. Dn is now old enough to decide who she sees so my dp are still there.

I suspect a lot of nrp don't facilitate access well and a lot of GP don't play it right and the lone parent doesn't have a great relationship with them so no-one resolves disagreements. My xsil dislikes all of us. If my db had been less of a father I doubt my Dn would see my dp.

Well said kickassangel.

It's awful to see how many people have parents and IL's who have forced them to cut contact.

Many hugs to you all

I've been thinking about this on and off since last night and I should have said that I do believe that some grandparents are unfairly cut off from their grandchildren, but not the majority of cases and certainly not in our case. It's wrong and very sad, and my heart goes out to them, but any increase in their rights to force contact with their grandchildren also increases the chances of these rights being abused by others, so I would be very wary and frightened of that.

SIL and BIL have taken their children to the other side of the world. They Skype and email and put photo's on Facebook, but I can't see how their decision to take their family as far away as they can possibly get is any different to our decision to cut all contact while still living within ten miles of DH's parents.

Yet if PILs could, I know they would take us to court for access to DS. The only thing stopping them is money, I'm quite sure of it. And if they suddenly had more rights to our DS, without the need to go to court, I think that emigrating would be our only option as well. Which would mean DS was then cut off from the rest of the family, who he does have good relationships with and who he is very close to, and how would that be in his best interests?

That's just my general musings on the situation though, not a reply to anybody here.

kickassangel I think what you say is right and in our case there's no way they could prove they had a significant relationship with DS.

The didn't see much of him as a baby, never once looked after him alone, he never spent a night with them or even an hour alone while we went shopping. When he was a newborn they lived at the other end of the country and by the time they moved back to the town we live in, the relationship with them had soured so badly that we put our house on the market to put some distance between us.

He hasn't seen them since he was nineteen months old and even at that point he had no idea who they were. He could recognise other family members and his face would light up when he saw them, but PILs might as well have been random strangers come in off the street to him.

Plus, DH and I are still married and have made a joint decision to go no-contact with DS, so that would also work against them I think/hope.

So they have never had a significant relationship with him in the way that other relatives have. DH's sister regularly sees DS and babysits him, she would have more right to go to court in my opinion.

But it's always a concern and a worry. PILs seem to have a knack of getting the right people to feel sorry for them and take up their cause.

And if they suddenly had more rights to our DS, without the need to go to court, I think that emigrating would be our only option as well

I was musing on this last night also, we too would have to move abroad.

So if the gp did weekly child minding then the parents divorced it would be best for the child to still have contact with the gp

I strongly disagree with this, our pils saw quite a bit of first dc, several times a month but all day, from 8am to 8pm etc...but the reason she was going there was partly pil created through excess stress to me, we also felt we had too even though she would come back withdrawn and not happy.

It has taken us a long tome to get get the courage to cut contact right down...( a few times a year). So if they took us to court based on past contact that would be in corrent.

Mydarlingclementine Same here. Contingency plans have been in place for some time.

I could have written a lot of these posts and I'm so sorry there are so many.

The piece really upset me actually, I understand it was an opinion piece and as such will be one-sided but for Denise Robertson to give advice like 'keep trying' and 'don't give up' is like a green light to my MIL who harasses us as a family and follows the 'I don't know what I've done' script. She did remind one caller about harassment but it really upset me to hear no thought of the other side - that yes, some gps are cut off unfairly, but the VERY REASON we can't have automatic 'rights' for gps is because of dangerous people like those described on this thread.

I also hated how mothers and daughters in law were cast as the villains of the piece with no thought to any other possible areas of conflict. Just spiteful DILs who had the gall to divorce and obviously banned the gps out of sheer bloody mindedness. Couldn't possibly be anything or anyone else involved...

Surely the basis of the law is that people have responsibilities towards children, not rights to them.

If you have been a significant part in a child's life, upon disagreement between adults, the issue should be what responsibilities you have towards that child.

So rather than say that grandparents have a right to see a child if they feel like it, the law should be that if you have formed a relationship with a child you have an ongoing responsibility towards them, whether you want it or not. So grandparents should then have a legal responsibility towards the child's childcare provision or costs of it, financial support of the child and so on, not just a right to see a child.

And if not, this isn't about the child's rights or well being. It is about a group of adults who want the right to swan in and out of children's lives as they see fit, without any legal responsibility for the consequences.

Couldn't agree more almondcakes, that's a really well-considered post.

MIL and her second husband are out of our lives for the very good reason said second husband admitted and was jailed for abusing her own grandchildren including our dd and she decided to support him.

She will not accept she is in the wrong and persists in sending us manipulative cards at Christmas and birthdays so she can bleat to anyone who will listen about how she's "done her bit to maintain contact" and we're the unreasonable ones.

I haven't seen the programme but I know she would be utterly capable of presenting a very convincing sad face to the world while denying her part in everything even to herself.

There are always two sides to every story.