Help please - difficult issue around child access and terminal illness

[Unhappytraveler]

Hoping someone might be able to help with the following...not really a AIBU but have posted for traffic:

I'm going to have to be slightly vague about the info as it is a very sad and sensitive situation but the crux of it is that someone close to me (let's call them A) has in the last few days been given a terminal cancer diagnosis. 3-6 months was suggested but they aren't doing too well and sadly we think it might be a lot less than that. There is no possibility of a cure and they have chosen not to have any treatment which might give them a few more months but cause more pain etc.

A has a grandchild who they haven't seen for several years due to the fact that As child B ( the non resident parent/ NRP) was under criminal investigation - the offence did not relate to the child but the child's (resident) parent said they would no longer agree to visitation or contact with nrp or their family, including A. Prior to that B had 40/60 access.

B decided (and this isn't intended to be a debate about rights and wrongs of that decision) to step away temporarily a couple of years ago rather than fight for contact but with every intention of re establishing contact in the near future...obviously the current unexpected situation now means that there is some urgency to do so for As sake.

At the time B was told they could go to court or that social services would be prepared to try and mediate to facilitate contact. SS advised that from a child protection perspective they had no concerns over access.

So what I'm trying to help the family with is what's the quickest way to achieve some contact with the child for A whilst they are still with us. Clearly B could apply to court but I'm anticipating that's a process that could take a while especially if the other parent refuses to engage ( which is a possibility) and time is not on As side.

Is there any way social services could assist? Given that previously the family were advised they might (but 2 or so years on and with the current traumatic situation no one can remember who to contact)

Derbee try to keep your posts accurate. It's quite boring having to correct your relentless hyperbole

The only hyperbole here is from you. I too saw the deleted post and only the most vivid imagination could have interpreted as wishing death on a person.

“ I think it is very weird to say being kept away is in the child’s best interests.”
I agree. I sometimes wonder whether the people who contribute to Mumsnet are mostly the parents of very young children, who have very little idea what 12 year olds are like.

“ I think it is very weird to say being kept away is in the child’s best interests.”

maybe maybe not. In this instance we don't really know why contact was refused in the first place, why B didn't fight for contact, why it has been left so long. What we do know is that this contact is not being sought for the benefit of the child but for A and that is the wrong reason.

“ What we do know is that this contact is not being sought for the benefit of the child but for A and that is the wrong reason.”
Absolutely that is the wrong reason. Absolutely. That does not mean that the child should not see A for rhe right reasons if he wants to. My concern is the decision being made for him- at 12 the decision should be his.

I thank fuck my own family culturally dont believe in all this cutting people off and going NC. I cant conceive of ever keeping a child away from this knowledge. But then I would never have behaved as the RP has here. Regardless of B, in the RPs position I would have responded to A and kept in some form of contact with them.

Sometimes third party agencies like Social Services tell RP to keep child away from NRP and family. B and A should be grateful that RP has looked after the child while his police issue was being resolved. I can only assume that B didn't resume contact straight away because he had stuff to do like wean himself off alcohol or drugs so he didn't get into trouble with the police again and he could be a better Dad. Again, he should be grateful that the child was shielded from the legal issues that B went through. It is clear that B's family is not thinking about the child at all. Some kids can not emotionally cope with the stress of visiting a very sick relative in hospital and shouldn't be forced to.

You clearly have no clue what it's like to have abusive people in your life that you have to shield your kids from to come up with that bullshit first sentence. I'm not saying that B is abusive btw but people who have "normal" families assume that people go NC on a whim but from experience I assure you that it is necessary sometimes,

I think that a legal letter will get RP's back up compared to contacting her directly. If there is a chance of contact even direct then B needs to step away from pursuing contact for himself right now. The boy is going to be faced with a terrible dilemma if asked what he'd like to do about seeing A and quite frankly I think it's cruel to ask a 12 year old that question. I also think if RP says child says no that that B's family were persist in getting the child to A's bedside.

Absolutely that is the wrong reason. Absolutely. That does not mean that the child should not see A for rhe right reasons if he wants to. My concern is the decision being made for him- at 12 the decision should be his.

And they absolutely should not be coerced or guilt tripped into it...... you know nanny is dying and really wants to see you and is going to be really sad if you say no.....

I would very much be concerned that this is the type of conversation that's going to happen as they are only contacting now as the death is imminent.

They haven't bothered before so why bother now?

Just popped into my head . On my Ds’s gp notes , there was a notice not to give out information to my exh . He has pr due to Dv.

Just dropping by to say we've removed a few personal attacks in this thread. Hopefully things will get back on track now.

Peace and love.

If a child of 12 is mature enough to make this decision, then they are mature enough to understand that their family abandoned them.

I have a 12 year old and spend a lot of time with 12 year olds. A decision like this shouldn't be put on them.

If I was the RP in this case I would want to see A first to evaluate how coherent/like themselves they were. If they were very ill (OP has said they can't compose a letter already) then I would say sorry but I didn't think it was in the best interest of my child.

All parties need to be the child's interests first.

12 year olds are not all the same as each other.

One of my daughters, at 12, would have been horrified at not having the chance to visit a terminally ill grandmother, and would absolutely have struggled more with finding out she'd died without having had that chance.
My other daughter, at 12, would have really struggled with the idea of visiting, and would probably have preferred to remember her as she was.

The thing is, that we'd have told them about the illness, given them the information needed, and reassured them that this was entirely their choice, and there was absolutely no pressure on them, and that we would not feel any differently about them whatever they chose to do. The decision would be about them and their feelings, and not about their grandmother.

@Unhappytraveler

You said found “not guilty” which means there was enough evidence to go to court. Depending on the nature of the crime, I’d be very concerned about letting my child have access with their other parent especially as the other parents seemed willing to let things slide. If I were B, I’d not stop until I gained access to my child and did what was right by that child. I would never stop fighting, B seemed to shrug their shoulders after barriers were put up. Not the sign of a great parent.

While, of course, you don’t have to say the nature of the accused crime, I do wonder if this played in a role in the RP blocking contact and also B realising they were onto a losing battle.

And as to why I'm here...that was clear in my OP. I didn't request opinions on whether to get in contact, or a debate on the rights and wrongs of B and RP. I was posting because we didn't have much time and I was trying to gather information

But op you posted on here to get information from people who may have experience in a professional or personal context with this situation. There are doctors, lawyers, social workers, parents etc on here who are willing to give their advice free of charge. However they have the right to decide whether the poster deserves that time and effort so the circumstances surrounding the loss of contact is important in the decision process. Your posts show no concern for the child involved and as many have pointed out this is the most significant factor.

Nobody is making up their own narrative they are analysing the information given or omitted and making judgements. It’s the basis of a forum post.

You are saying 1,2,3 and when a comment is made saying no but you don’t know 4. Then refusing to say what 4 is.

No Schuyler that's not quite what I said. Please re read my posts, and stop like other posters embroidering or imagining details.

The decision not to pursue contact at the time was not taken lightly, but it was felt to be for the best as RP was opposed and this might distress the child. It was a very difficult situation and you only have to read a litany of posts on here from RPs seeking to frustrate or limit contact with a NRP (who has often not done anything wrong - not been in any way abusive or even strict with the child) just because the child, perhaps picking up on RPs feeling, doesn't want to go to contact. Or the RP misses them. Or because the NRP parents slightly differently. I've read many posts from RPs so resentful of the NRPs involvement, the split of time, that they wish NRP would stop seeing the child/ children. Do kids pick up on that shit? Absolutely.

But this isn't meant as a debate on a decision which was made years ago. We can't time travel and change it. All the family can do now is take whatever action open to then to try and get some resolution. Which is something I will as requested be supporting them with.

@Unhappytraveler

On Monday 4 November, you said ”B wasnt found guilty.” You do not need to snap and accuse every single person. Given you’re not family, you’ve taken it very personally, even from people - like me - who have tried to be supportive throughout the thread and give advice that might help A actually see the child.

Did someone get that letter sent off, OP?

Goodness, just RTFT. Hope the letter gets lost in the post, if so

I’m a social worker. I work in the family courts.
I agree with the majority of the posters here who say that this is more about the wishes of A than what is right for the child.
I don’t see that this is an appropriate matter for social care or the courts.
My advice would be to speak civilly to the RP and explain what is happening.
Best case scenario?
RP sits down with the child and tells them, gently, that grandparent is very unwell and isn’t going to get better.
That’s all.
No asking them directly whether they want to see grandparent, or putting them under emotional pressure.
They’re 12. Give them the information in a child focused way, then support them with their reactions. They might say to RP that they want to see grandparent, which would then be their choice without being put on the spot.
But this is for RP to manage. If they choose not to, pursuing it through the courts will not be a happy scenario for anyone.

Fenella in a situation where the RP has historically refused to allow access to the childs parent and conspired with childs school to keep any information about the child concealed, does anyone really expect RP would be amenable to such a conversation?

We have been advised that RP will not do anything (not allow access irlor even explain position to child) without a court order. How true that us we don't know but legal advice has been sought and the lawyers are optimistic that this can be resolved legally while A is still with us. Which has provided some much needed good news for the family.

But remember @Unhappytraveler if they succeed or not they will still want the fees paid, they've nothing to lose but telling you they're hopeful.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, B is going to go to court to seek access for herself so she can then take the child to visit A?

I think a lawyer is better placed to advise on whether court action would succeed than any lay person. Plus they are not being paid, they have offered to assist FOC.

Plus they are not being paid, they have offered to assist FOC.

Of course they have 🙄! Why wouldn't they? I mean it's not like they need to earn a living or anything?