Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

If something terrible happened to me, can I stop PIL taking care of DC?

77 replies

istheresomethingicando · 01/03/2011 14:41

Morbid I know but the thought of this is worrying me.

PIL have an abusive relationship themselves and I believe they abused DH as a child.

Is there anything I can do to legally prevent my PIL caring for my DC if anything happens to me?

I trust my DH to look after DC if I wasn't here but I know he would happily leave DC in there care.

He makes excuses for the things they've done and insists he was a naughty child and deserved it.

Is there anything I can do, just myself without involving DH, to ensure that if I die before DC turn 18 that they cannot be left in the care of PIL?

The only evidence I have of what they did is things they themselves have said happened and things DH has told me.

I can stop them being alone with DC while I'm around but I worry about what would happen if something terrible happens and I can't be there.

I can't tell DH about this. Is there anything I can do?

OP posts:
Mamaz0n · 01/03/2011 14:46

If you were to die then he would take care of teh children.
If you were both to die and one of you had named aguardian in their will then that personw ould be assessed by SS for their suitability and as long as nothing untoward was revealed then guardianship will be awarded.

If you don't want them to go to your In laws then make a will.

Original poster
istheresomethingicando · 01/03/2011 14:49

Thanks. Would a will be enough though?

OP posts:
goldtinsel · 01/03/2011 14:54

You can add a Statement of Intent to your instructions in your will to explain your decision (if you wrote that you would explicitly not allow PIL to be Guardians) and this would be taken into account if PILs took legal action to access the children.

That would not really help though if you died and DH had the kids. You need to make sure that he knows your thoughts on the matter. How old are your DC? It gets simpler as they get older because you can talk carefully to them about how Granny is a nutter...

IntergalacticHussy · 01/03/2011 14:58

i have wondered this myself for similar reasons.

Resolution · 01/03/2011 15:23

A guardianship clause takes effect on the death of the last surviving parent, and does not need a court order or social services involvement. Indeed SS wouldn't become involved at all unless the child is at risk. They have enough on their plate as it is.

titchy · 01/03/2011 15:27

No there isn't...unless you involve your dh.

You coudl make joint wills specifying smeone else to look after them if you both die - and make sure the someone else is aware of your reasons, and hope that if you died your dh wouldn't then make another will saying his parents would look after your dcs.

In any case I think technically with both parents dead the dcs would be in the care of the local authority, though in normal circumstances the LEA would simply check that the people named as guardians were willing to do it and possibly carry out basics checks. Do you have any family yourself you coudl step in with SS if you both died and your PIL ended up with them?

Resolution · 01/03/2011 16:18

The legal position is that on the death of both parents anyone named as guardian in their wills (need only be in the will of one of them) has automatic parental responsibility - ie the responsibility in law to look after a child and the legal powers to enable them to do that.

The second parent to die cannot simply erase the appointment in the will of the first to die.

There can be more than one guardian. If they disagree about what to do then the court can sort it out.

The Local Authority (not even the LEA)would only become involved if no one in the world had PR, in which case they would identify a close family member willing to take the child on, and advise that person to apply to the court for a residence order.

They would also take an interest if the child was believed to be at risk. Otherwise they wouldn't be interested at all.

wannaBe · 01/03/2011 16:22

no there isn't.

I'm assuming that you're talking about if you died before your dh? In which case the children will become his responsibility. You could not make legal stipulations as to how your dh was to take care of his own children. You could only do that if you were both to die.

AMumInScotland · 01/03/2011 16:34

Do you mean "What would hapen if DH dies too?" or "What happens if I die and DH has full responsibility for the DC, but lets them stay at his parents most of the time?"

Original poster
istheresomethingicando · 01/03/2011 17:24

Sorry to disappear, thanks for your replies.

I want my parents or my sister to be the guardians if anything happened to both of us, but what I'm concerned about here is what would happen if only I were to die, not DH - exactly as AMumInScotland has said, if I die and DH has full responsibility for the DC but lets them be alone with his parents. I can't have that. He knows it but I don't believe he would respect my wishes, he thinks his family situation was normal and he deserved it.

I believe it is too much of a risk for DC to be with PIL for any length of time.

I think I am going to look into making a will with a statement of intent as suggested by goldtinsel

OP posts:
Resolution · 01/03/2011 22:52

The only thing you could do is notify social services that there is a risk. If they agree, they could initiate child protection procedures that would survive your death.

Wouldn't think it would make for a harmonious marriage though.

prh47bridge · 01/03/2011 23:29

Agree with Resolution. You may be able to stop your PIL having the children if you both die but nothing you put in your will can stop your husband leaving your children alone with his parents if you die and he has responsibility for them.

melvinscomment · 04/03/2011 09:44

@ istheresomethingicando :- Re Resolution's comment "The only thing you could do is notify social services that there is a risk", which may well have been written in haste. I would suggest you think very carefully before contacting social services. The bottom line about that is if Local Authority social workers think a child is at risk from any source, eg your parents in law, the SWs can arrange for the child to be taken into care, from which situation it is now relatively easy for them to get a child forcibly adopted,regardless of what the parents want! In the hopefully likely event that neither you nor your husband will die before your children are quite old, the potential problem you refer to may never arise.

moaningminniewhingesagain · 04/03/2011 09:50

melvin you seem to be obsessed with telling people that their children may be forcibly adopted.

Please reconsider such sweeping, inaccurate statements.

If the PILS were felt to be a significant risk, I am quite sure that SS would be satisfied with them having no contact, they certain would not take the children away just in case.

And IIRC Resolution has a legal background and actually knows what they are talking about. I doubt it was written in haste, and is sound advice.

melvinscomment · 04/03/2011 09:58

Here is a 2007 video of Eric Pickles MP, now Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, talking about Social Services and the Family Courts :- www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynf3eyfqrfM

FourFortyFour · 04/03/2011 10:03

Just marking my place for when I have time to read as this is a similar situation to what I am in.

melvinscomment · 04/03/2011 10:05

@ moaningminniewhingesagain et al :- If social services think the parents-in-law are a significant risk to the children they will remove the children from the parents before either of them dies.

Resolution · 04/03/2011 14:05

I don't post on here off the cuff. I am a family solicitor with 20 years experience.

If there is a risk to OP's children then she should notify social services. Only a cretin would fail to notify SS if they thought their child was at risk.

It may well be that OP is managing that risk now by ensuring the grandparents aren't left with her child unsupervised. SS wouldn't be interested therefore as they will see that she has the situation under control. However if there is a real risk of harm, and OP allows her partner to leave the child with his parents unsupervised, then yes, she will have some awkward questions to answer and deservedly so.

(OP - I'm not saying you do that BTW)

Your last comment is wrong. The question is whether SS think that OP is managing the risk appropriately, assuming they agree that there is a risk.

Melvin - I hope you haven't had any bad experiences with SS - it's just that alot of the people who post advice to parents to the effect that SS are their enemy tend to have come a cropper with them in the past, and often because that is how they conducted themselves with SS.

melvinscomment · 04/03/2011 14:52

@ Resolution :- I think it is definitely very risky for anyone to invite social services to intervene in their private and family life. In that respect I refer to the comment Eric Pickles MP makes at the end of the video I posted above, when referring to social services involvement with a respectable family with polite kids :- "If it can happen to them it can happen to you"

melvinscomment · 04/03/2011 21:26

@ Resolution :- PS I don't think you were correct when you said my last comment was wrong, if you were referring to my comment "@ moaningminniewhingesagain et al :- If social services think the parents-in-law are a significant risk to the children they will remove the children from the parents before either of them dies."

I may not have expressed it very clearly, but I think I was saying essentially the same as you when you said "The question is whether SS think that OP is managing the risk appropriately, assuming they agree that there is a risk."

In order to be entirely clear, what I was and am saying is, if istheresomethingicando invites social services into her home and family situation, and if social services decide there is a significant risk of the children being harmed by the parents-in-law, and if social services decide istheresomethingicando isn't able to eliminate that risk, then social services will remove the children regardless of what istheresomethingicando or her husband or her parents-in-law or her side of the family think the risk of harm is, this is why it is very risky to invite social services to intervene in any private family situation.

Resolution · 05/03/2011 00:33

I don't think that is risky. SS would insist that the children don't go near the grandparents unsupervised and everyone would have to tow the line. OP would be vindicated, and have SS's backing.

melvinscomment · 05/03/2011 02:14

@ Resolution ... It is easy for you to say something isn't risky, from the comfort of your office. However, any parents who want to hand control of their lives to social services should invite them into their homes.

Resolution · 05/03/2011 10:32

Parents who inviteSS into their homes and get their kids removed lose them usually because the have been very poor parents. Please do share your experiences of working with SS before you denigrate them further. My experience comes from advising clients where SS have threatened to remove their kids. I've seen first hand what works and what doesn't.

melvinscomment · 05/03/2011 11:04

@ Resolution ... I think it is quite likely that your advice is to agree with everything social services say and or demand, which is fair enough, assuming that works. My advice is to never let them enter one's home without a warrant and subsequently to challenge the validity of the warrant.

melvinscomment · 05/03/2011 11:37

@ Resolution et al ... My advice also applies to any other state workers such as health visitors and the police. I would open the door, ask them what it is about, not let them in no matter how nicely or threateningly they asked and if it seemed appropriate say I would contact them later and go and meet them in their premises, accommpanied by a friend or family member to observe what transpires. If the police accompanying any other state workers have a warrant then one is obliged to let them enter one's home. In which case I would recommend remaining calm, say very little, calmly deny any false allegations, say there is actually nothing to worry about, only allow the state workers to question me in one room and refuse them permission to inspect my home, unless the warrant was a search warrant, invite them to leave my home asap.