Grandparents rights

[H2010]

Has anyone had any experiance of their ex mil taking them to court for access to their grandchild. At court next week and very nervous

[BurnAfterReading]

I don't have any experience in this at all, but thought this could do with a bump.

Good Luck! :)

[prh47bridge]

Without knowing the circumstances it is impossible to advise on the likely outcome. How much contact has your ex MiL had with your child in the past? When and why did that stop? What are your reasons for not wanting your MiL to see her grandchild?

[H2010]

Last time she saw my daughter she was 10 weeks old, she is currently 8 months reasons she has not seen her is because her son my ex has been in and out of jail, custody and court for harressment and criminal damage towards me and my property car etc and treatened to kill me and kidnap the baby he is living at her address and is bailed to her ddress i currently have a restraining order against him which was giin to him by the court on the advise of the police and the domestic violence time any advice would be appreciated thanks

[Resolution]

If dad isn't having contact, this might be a way for your child to maintain contact with paternal family.

[H2010]

not when the said ex is living with the paternal family

[ValiumSandwichTime]

Heaven help you. She wouldn't try just being civil to you first I guess?

Does she acknowledge that her son was a danger to you? or is she all my liddle boy wouldn't harm a fly you evil wench?

[Resolution]

The court can place a strict condition that the child doesn't come into contact with your ex, but you'll have to satisfy the court that he's a danger to the child, not just to you.

[H2010]

No he's her little boy he never does anything wrong its everyone elses fault etc etc. She left me a very nice voice mail telling me if I dont play my cards right Ill get more trouble. He's said on numerous occasions if he ever gets to see the baby i'll never see her again

[MumInBeds]

Have you got that voicemail to present in court? I can't see that any judge could see in her favour if you have that.

[H2010]

Yes I've kept voicemail the police have heard it to as I reproted her for harressmnet

[onlyhereonce]

I'm going through a similar thing but my parents are at fault not a partner. What i find astounding is the fact we as parents have to satisfy anybody about our reasons for not wanting people in our childrens lives?? I pushed my babies out , im their mother , i feed them , i love them , i guide them in life , they have my blood in their veins so WHY IS MY KIDS LIFE IN THE HANDS OF A STRANGER WHO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO ME OUR MY KIDS YET IT SEEMS HAS TOTAL CONTROL ON WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SEE "MY" KIDS???

Amy

[MoldyWarp]

dont believe they have any

[ValiumSandwichTime]

With that recording h1020 and the fact that gps don't have any automatic rights, I think you should be ok. I don't think any judge will say, oh although gps don't usually have any rights, after hearing that recording I'm going to insist you must accommodate this gm's wishes to see her gc.

ARe you in court today? Please come back and tell us what happened.

[Resolution]

A timely reminder landed in my inbox this morning: here is the summary of a judgment by Nick Wall in the High Court on 1st Feb.

The court ordered supervised contact to take place between children and their paternal grandparents at a contact centre and explained the careful approach taken to such issues by the court.

Case name 1) CW (2) CHW & BAW v (1) TW (2) OW & YW (BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, NYAS) (2011)

The court was required to determine the application of a mother (M) to commit a father (F) to prison for breach of a court order, and an application by paternal grandparents (G) for contact with the children. The children were aged 10 and 12. F and M were separated and involved in a dispute concerning contact. By order of the court, F had been banned from approaching or entering the school which his children attended. A penal notice was attached to the order. M complained that F had breached the order by sitting in his car close to the children's school. Her complaint was supported by the evidence of a police officer who had approached F. The children's guardian submitted that contact could be arranged with G but it should be supervised in a contact centre, and it had to be independent of F.

HELD: (1) There did not appear to be a formal committal summons amongst the papers in support of M's application. That was a serious procedural defect. However, M was acting in person, and the court was satisfied that F had been fully notified of the allegations against him. What mattered in committal proceedings was justice and provided procedural technicalities did not interfere with the overall justice of the case they could be overlooked. The police officer had seen and spoken to F and was unequivocal in his evidence that F had stopped his car near to the school. In those circumstances, applying the criminal standard of proof, F was in breach of the court's order and was in contempt of court. Such a breach was not trivial, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing (see paras 17-18, 22, 24-26 of judgment). (2) G believed passionately that F had been badly treated and that even if he had behaved badly he was the victim of maternal intransigence, judicial self-importance and poor judgment. In that, they were wrong. Any objective reader of the papers would come unhesitatingly to the following conclusions: (a) that F had brought the situation entirely upon himself; (b) that the judges who had dealt with the case were right, were deeply reluctant in the long term to cut the children off from contact with F, but had been left with no alternative; (c) that G, by their partisan attitude, were in danger of making the children's situation more difficult. The court fully understood that G were desperate to see their grandchildren, but that was not the test. The test was whether it was in the interests of the children for such contact to take place. G's wholesale support for F and their hostility to M were strong pointers against contact. The parents' disagreements and F's conduct were not the children's responsibility. Grandparents usually had the capacity to deliver the vital quality of normality, as they were normally above the fray. They could provide a haven for children whilst keeping them in touch with the absent side of their family. However, the question was whether G could do that. The court concluded that they could. G appeared to recognise that if contact took place at their home they would find it impossible to keep F away. G also recognised the harm that the children could suffer if they sought to proselytise F's case to them (paras 9-10, 12, 31-32). (3) A single supervised visit was to be arranged of no more than two hours at a contact centre on a date to be fixed. F should not be physically present, in the vicinity, or on the telephone. A fresh report should then be prepared so that the court could consider the matter further (para.33).

[ValiumSandwichTime]

Nice one Resolution.

I dont think OP's xmil could be described as being 'above the fray' so I hope OP is reassured by this!

[Gonzo33]

Onlyhereonce. I went to court in relation to my dc a couple of years ago. It was in relation to a residence order and a contact order. I am not going to go into details about the reasons why this was done, but it was. I found the judge to be very reasonable, and quickly found the measure of the respondent (I had to instigate the court order).

Courts and judges are not always the way forward, but they are the last resort. I have never been told by anyone I have come across that the judge did not act in the best interests of the child. Sometimes we, as parents, do not see reasonable answer because we are too close to the situation. I have read your situation on another post and hope that your situation does change for your children's sake.

To the OP, Good luck in court. Please do not be daunted. I can assure you that the courts really do have the best interests of the child at heart.

Me xx

[freshmint]

bang on point resolution, well done

[freshmint]

"G's...hostility to M"

if your MIL has gone further - to making threats etc - that may be a way of distinguishing your case from the one above

[cestlavielife]

as per that case - if any contact is ordered it is likely to be supervised at a contact centre with further reports - that could be a good outcome for all.....

[molly1121]

Hi i am very interested in what happened in court I am in a very simular situation and in court in a few weeks very nervous this court apperance is for ex partners mother to apply for leave to the court to proceed. Very upset & worried.

[BooyFuckingHoo]

yes although i was never married to EXP so she wasn't my Exmil.

but yes her and her DH took me to court after i stopped their unofficial weekly contact due to violence. the court's stance was that my son had had contact established for 18 months and so it would be wrong to stop this. HTH.