Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

aibu NOT to vote tory if they are going to give my mother in law rights over my children!!

79 replies

howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 11:20

I cant imagine the rows this would cause in our family!!!!

Surely the parents should be the only ones who ultimatley have care and control of their children.

I agree that if they give up those rights and the child ends up in care then the grandparents should be considered but no more than other close members of family ( and on a case by case basis)

OP posts:
Firawla · 26/10/2009 12:18

it sounds fairly reasonable to me, the article does not say that mil will suddenly be put in charge of the day to day aspects of caring for your dc or making decisions, but they will not be allowed to be cut totally out of the children's lives in circumstances like divorce, bereavement - which is fair..

diddl · 26/10/2009 12:19

MorrissZapp

You have a point.

I don´t get on particularly with my ILs, but if husband & I split, surely he can take his children to see his parents?

Marioandluigi · 26/10/2009 12:35

If my MIL had rights to my DC's I would leave the country, seriously.

I put up with her, but she has some very strange ideas that would put my children at risk. For example she thinks the way to deal with DS1's severe peanut allery is to let him have lots of them so his body can become immune

She is not allowed to take the children on thier own, so if she had rights it would be over my dead body!

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 12:49

If GP's have automatic rights to see their GC and parents do not agree to it are we going to see whole families in court - how can that be good for children.

Most paternal GP loose contact with GC because their sons loose contact with their children, we should encourage dads to stay in their childs lives, that would be a good start and would not need legislation.

OP posts:
LilyBolero · 26/10/2009 13:39

It must be a good thing though in cases where parents have (wrongly) lost custody of their children (when abuse has been wrongly alleged) if the children could go to grandparents. Because that would avoid the hideous situation there is now where a parent can prove their innocence, but because the children have been adopted by other people, they still don't get to see them, let alone get them back. In that scenario, surely going to grandparents is better?

pleasechange · 26/10/2009 13:41

howlatrubymoon - it's not necessarily the case that GP's lose out on a relationship with the GC just because the father isn't in contact with the DC's. Many fathers have strictly controlled access to the children ruled by a court order, and the PWC often chooses not to let the GPs see the children outside of this, just because she doesn't want to, and doesn't have to

Vallhala · 26/10/2009 13:53

YANBU.

I won't vote Tory because of this and their views on the Hunting act, I won't vote Labour because of their education policy and as for the rest... huh!

I think I shall be staying at home on polling day.

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 13:58

Allnew - you are right, each case is so very different, that is why they should be taken on merit only.

Automatic rights will only cause trouble in my opinion.

I really dont want this thread to start to be used as a stick to beat single mothers with.

OP posts:
pleasechange · 26/10/2009 14:13

hardly single mother bashing to suggest GPs may deserve to still see their GCs after a separation, and that this may require intervention in some cases

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 14:36

Allnew - not sure about this (as not a single parent) but from what i gather there is nothing stopping dads from taking their children to see their parents when they have access.

If you are saying that intervention may be required in some cases (mediation would be my first choice)that is very far from giving all GP automatic rights.

I just dont think this is well thought out.

My mil is a bit of a loon (we are perfectly polite to one another though) and does not really know her GC (her choice)

Given "rights" she would undoubtedly cause havoc in their lives (ie. if i left them in the custody of my sister she could go for custody or be so interfering that she made things difficult and horrid).

Why should the government override my wishes?

OP posts:
pleasechange · 26/10/2009 14:40

I don't know enough about the proposals to make a decision on whether or not they're a good idea. I do know, however, that parents of men who have separated frequently get a very raw deal in terms of access to the children

I know you've said that the GPs can see the children during the father's access time. However, the typical access time is every other weekend - i.e. very limited

I don't know if you have any sons - but I imagine that if you do, and if one day you land up in this situation, then you may see the issue in a different light

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 15:00

I dont know if you have any daughters, (i have both a son and daughters),

I know that if my daughter had escaped an abusive relationship and was then forced to have contact with with abusers family or forced to go to court to prevent it I would feel bad -

There are always two sides to a story! Just saying that this would be open to all sorts of abuse and with children involved that is not a good thing.

OP posts:
cassell · 26/10/2009 15:14

As far as I can see from this article grandparents would be given the same "right" to apply for contact as stepparents have and to be considered as carers if the children have to be taken away from the parents for whatever reason. They do not have an automatic "right" to custody/access etc, they have to apply for it.

howla - I do not see from this article that there would be any "overriding" of your wishes, if you appointed (e.g under your will) your sister as guardian of your children in the event of your death then she would become their guardian.

This all seems eminently sensible imo, yes of course there will be situations where it may not work but surely on the whole it is better for children who have already been through trauma (divorce/death/abuse or whatever results in this situation) to be looked after by a family member who they know (at least a bit) rather than a complete stranger?

IMO just because you do not get on with your pil (or your own parents) does not necessarily mean that they should not be able to look after or have access to your children.

LittleMarshmallow · 26/10/2009 15:14

I would be that person howlatrubymoon. I having to fight xh through the courts as he is mis-treating ds. But my mil is a loon of the highest order, has attacked me in my own house (although I was told not to press charges as it would make things worse). Has screamed abuse at me in various public places.

When ds was screaming for me one handover time refused to let him give me a cuddle and pulled him into the car, ds is only 3.

So the thought she could challenge me through the courts again for access to my son scares the daylights out of me, it is bad enough the legal system has allowed ds to see xh when he makes him sick (and I have the proof but no one cares), and based on this I know she would get it.

pleasechange · 26/10/2009 15:15

I'm pretty sure they haven't introduced this just to help out the families of abusers! Like I said, I don't know enough ins and outs of the specific proposals to know the detail or to have an opinion on whether or not they're a good thing or not. But as I've said, sometimes, GPs do need some help in getting access to their GC. I'm pretty sure that this was probably a key driver on introducing it in the first place, not to piss off single mothers

6feetundertheGroundhogs · 26/10/2009 15:21

Hmm, wondering if Vallhala's 'Jane' has decent GP?

mrsjammi · 26/10/2009 15:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 15:34

Poor you littleMarshmallow [SAD] I have a feeling that this would be so impractical that it could never be passed as law (fingers crossed).

As parents we have to trust our instincts over who we allow near our children. I truly dont believe that there are many who deny access without very good reason and there are already legal routes you can go down if you want to appeal this.

I dont think there should be automatic access to children by anyone other than the parents.

Cassell - I think they make it clear that this would be used in cases where parents have seperated not only in the very rare cases where children go into care and not to relatives who want them.

OP posts:
cassell · 26/10/2009 15:46

Yes howla I know it is also where parents have separated but I don't agree that it would allow "automatic access" it would simply put gps in the same position as stepparents - i.e able to apply for access. I agree that parents have to trust their instincts and obviously in abusive situations etc then the courts should not (and I know that sometimes they get it wrong) allow access but unfortunately there are some people who will use their children to "get at" their ex-p and who will deny access to gps even where the children have a very good relationship with the gps. I do not see why in this scenario the gps should not have the right to apply for access?

LittleMarshmallow · 26/10/2009 15:53

cassell - what you are saying is true too. But where the courts at present in my opinion are making too many mistakes regarding access / contact with children and their parents, surley it would be foolish to add more complexity to an already flawed system.

mrsjammi · 26/10/2009 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

pleasechange · 26/10/2009 15:55

I agree with cassell. It is probably only going to be a last resort when GPs need to apply anyway, where all attempts to try for access with the PWC have failed. If there has been abuse, I'm sure this can be addressed by the court

said · 26/10/2009 15:59

Saw this story on Matthew Wright. Can envisage problems where one set of grandparents are dead and other set aren't. Not thought through what the problems are yet but makes me feel twitchy. Wouldn't vote tory anyway so moot point

Original poster
howlatrubymoon · 26/10/2009 16:06

Cassell - Quote - "continuing legal right to access in the event of a family breakdown."

GP's already have the right to go to court to apply for access to GC if they do not already see them with their son or daughter.

Some ex-p and gp will go for access in order to "get at" their son or daughters ex-p also so it is not always one way IYKWIM.

Not all children are better off with GP's than in care - it all depends on the situation (they are already taken into consideration by the courts).

If GP's also have access to children on a practical note how would this work??????? Who would police it! Are we going to drag children through more courts just so we can have what we think are our "rights"

OP posts:
WailingGhoshe · 26/10/2009 16:11

Try being a Grandparent who has no contact with a Grandchild before you go against this proprosal.

We have had custody of our GC, atdifferent times throughout her life.

But now she is back with her Mother. who when she feels like it refuses to let us see her.

We have no rights to see her. It can be heartbreaking.