Court proceedings, grandparents seeking contact, cafcass recommend ever 2 weeks

[PollyCinnamon]

I am in disbelief as the mother of 11 month old twins, that I have no rights to choose who my children associate with. I didn't realise the law had changed to erode parental rights like this.

Prior to the birth I found out my other half was seeing prostitutes, his mother encouraged this behaviour and when we sought counselling to try & rescue the situation, she forbade it. She caused so much trouble in the first few months of the babies lives, including insisting on dictating the christening and religious faith of the children, despite the fact she would not allow her son to be christened at all. She has tried to up skittle the family based maintenance arrangement I have with the father (the babies shouldn't be getting so much financial support), has spread lies about me and flamed me on Facebook as a 'piranha woman'.

Her son, the babies dad, has mental health issues and she had advised him not to reveal the extent of them to his psychiatrist, and provided immoral guidance to him to the extent that it has formed a sort of conditioning which is difficult for him to shrug off, despite his wishes to reform and be a good father for his new sons.

I decided last July that enough was enough and stopped contact with her. The paternal grandmother has since taken me to court, and we are well advanced into the process. Cafcass, the court appointed child protection body have decided that she poses no physical threat to the children, and are recommending that she sees them every 2 weeks. The reasoning behind this is the blanket assumption that grandparents enrich their grandchildrens lives. The fact that the babies don't know her means that they have to recommend regular contact of every 2 weeks, to try and establish this relationship.

I feel that she is a really damaging and destructive person, immoral, selfish and deceitful.
It is 90% certain the court will follow the recommendations made in the cafcass report, of contact every 2 weeks, despite it being against the wishes of both myself and the babies father.

The situation seems crazy to me, I thought parents who were caring well for their children had the right to bring them up unmilested and protect them from bad influences, but it seems that is no longer the case. I'm in utter shock.

[Flo899]

Hello, Did you reach any solution? I am being forced through the court by a grandparent also and 'the child' involved does not want to see them. It has almost broken our family financially. I can see why children may be put 'AT SERIOUS RISK' if a lone parent has to give up an objection case and provide access due to their own family work commitments and/or flexibility or nerves to attend court and pay for representation. The child has no justice here and the lowest struggling formations of family are bullied and steam rolled over. Ask the child!

[VegasIsBest]

"A parent must never have a veto on things like contact with grandparents."

This doesn't make any sense. Of course the parent should have the right to decide who their child sees. The same as they decide on their education, what food they eat, what sports they do etc when kids are young. All of these things contribute to the kid's health and wellbeing - and looking after that is surely the fundamental role of a parent.

[ImperfectAlf]

Collaborate is correct. In the court's view, the welfare of the child is paramount. It is the child(ren) who have the rights, not the parents or anyone else. Whilst it is important that the court does not act generally as a third parent, in private proceedings, the court will be able to hear and take into account all sides of the issues in an impartial way. That is their remit.....to help parties come to an agreement in the best interest of any child(ren) or to decide issues in the absence of agreement.

[newnc]

I realise that you didn't say exactly what I had said, but you supported the general idea that cafgas or the courts are better placed to know and/or would generally be more likely to put the child's best interest first, rather than the parent. That would surely be the exception not the rule.

Someone trying to avoid much contact with grandparents who has good reason to do so may be seen as being vindictive by others. A grandparent could behave dreadfully but then kick up a fuss about the lack of contact vindictively.

Anyway, sorry for butting in OP, I hope that your barrister is able to express your concerns.

[Collaborate]

Parents always have the right to explain their reasoning to the court. They will always be listened to.
Unfortunately at times some parents can act in a vindictive manner, and not be thinking about what is best for their child.
The more remote a relative is from a child the less their prospect of success. An aunt or uncle may get a contact order if they are the only surviving relative on hat side of the family, or if they have had a close and loving relationship with the child. Note I said "may", not "will".

Some children really need to be protected from the awful decisions made by their parents. Tough if you disagree. That's the system we've got and I'm proud of it.

[Sunshine87]

As a stated previously when does its stop what next aunt /uncle rights the rights of the parents to parent they're child how they see fit not be forced to have a third party GP to be involved against their wishes. Children are unable to voice /
understand parents concerns of they are enstranged from the GP.

[Collaborate]

Collaborate, I don't understand how you can think it is positive for the child if the gp is hostile to the mother, ever? A child will suffer self esteem issues if they are aware of the hostility and I would say the vast majority of children would be aware even if the adults tried to hide it, as children pick up on their mother's tension and tension generally.

When did I ever say that? Don't read in to my posts things that are not there.

A parent must never have a veto on things like contact with grandparents. Too many make bad choices.

The problem I am having is some of the posters saying it's the rights of the parents that ought to be respected. FGS put your children first. I can't see how that's a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

Hostility of GP is certainly a relevant factor, but not necessarily determinative.

[Fourormore]

It is not grandparents' rights, parents' rights, aunties' and uncles' rights - it's the rights of the children!

[Sunshine87]

A child has no understanding if GP was hostile or abusive therefore a parent should be able to make that decision on that basis. Parents shouldn't be dictated who are involved in their children's lives often there's a valid reason.

[newnc]

Also the vast majority of parents put their dc's needs first (I believe) and therefore limit contact based on the child's needs/rights, parental "rights" referring to the right to decide what is best for their child?

[newnc]

Collaborate, I don't understand how you can think it is positive for the child if the gp is hostile to the mother, ever? A child will suffer self esteem issues if they are aware of the hostility and I would say the vast majority of children would be aware even if the adults tried to hide it, as children pick up on their mother's tension and tension generally.

[Collaborate]

No. The rights of the child should always trump the rights of the parent. Thanks God we've got courts so that people can't get away with thinking like that.

[Sunshine87]

No otherwise when does it stop aunties and uncles rights? The right of the parent should trump extended family members.

[Collaborate]

No be dictated to by a court of law unless it's a parent.

So you would think that if one parent dies and the remaining parent prevents those grandparents from having contact then there's nothing they should be able to do?

This would make decisions about who the child should see a matter for the interests of the parents alone, rather than the child. Totally wrong.

Put the child at the centre of your thinking at all times.

[Sunshine87]

Sorry fourin the case of grandparents the parents should have a right who is involved in their DC lives
No be dictated to by a court of law unless it's a parent.

[Fourormore]

Grandparents don't have rights over the parents 😒 The children have rights.

[Sunshine87]

This is why grandparents shouldn't have rights over the parents. I feel for you OP I had an nightmare ex mil who is utter vile I wouldn't want her influencing my DS. She has no access in her own right but sees DS when his DF has him. Can you print all the slanderous stuff she's said about you? Realistically if shes disrespectful towards you she shouldn't be involved in the babies lives access utilmately will not work if she cannot respect you as the care giver.

[PollyCinnamon]

Thank-you for that. I will get onto it & will let you know how it goes.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Op you need good legal help, what seems wrong is not against the law. Altho I think we would all cut this vile woman out of our lives.

You need legal counsel who can articulate to the judge who negatively this woman is affecting your children and your ex's relationship with his children. It needs to be handled by someone who knows what they're doing.

[PollyCinnamon]

Thanks that all seems quite understandable, I am starting to see that however difficult shes made things for me and the babies father, and how it affected our lives, that we have to just suck it up, as it doesn't directly affect the children.

Although indirectly it does, due to heightened stress causing him to become mentally unwell, and relations getting strained between the 2 of us making him not want to see the babies as regularly.

Her trying to get him to cut the level of maintenance also would affect the babies too, had she succeeded.

I feel her desire to control and disrupt our plans has no basis in what is in the children's welfare, she just feels she knows best and her opinion matters most. She is retired and cash-rich, she is a formidable woman. And I'm totally opposed to this lying as a way of life ethos she has instilled into her son.

You're right she didn't ultimately manage to control the decisions, but it was only by cutting her out totally that this autonomy was achieved, as she could never accept an alternative decision was being made, or let anything lie. Life just became one battle after another.

The rest of her side of the family have not wanted to have any contact with the babies since her contact stopped, despite my invitations. She has got them all believing that I stopped contact for no reason. This stands in her favour as it is not just her not having contact, the whole extended family on her side have stopped wanting to see the babies.

I just wish the contact could be monthly, two weekly will put her regularly at the centre of our lives again. Do you think I stand any chance of it being reduced to monthly? :-(

The report concludes "I would recommend that the paternal grandmother tries to curb any wish to help which could be seen as interfering'.

I fail to see how when she was posting defamatory remarks about me on Facebook, and suggesting paternity tests should be required if I wanted child maintenance for the babies, that this was her trying to 'help'.

[Collaborate]

The Grandmother's ability to cause disruption between the parents is a relevant factor that the court should be taking in to account.

[Collaborate]

Google Childern Act Welfare Checklist. You'll see then what Fourormore means.

[Fourormore]

Yes it is - the grandmother's case is basically that the children's welfare would be limited without having contact with her and the guidance given is that children benefit from knowing as many members of their family as fully as possible, taking risk into account.

I see what you're saying but the fact that she encouraged your ex to sleep with prostitutes or told him to lie about the psychosis is pretty much irrelevent. I wouldn't have expected those things to reduce the level of recommended contact at all. Same with the christening. That's all stuff that affects your relationship with her, not the children's relationship with her (except through the animosity between the two of you which the children shouldn't be made aware of).

She sounds like a nightmare but I don't think you've written anything that would make me concerned about her spending time with them as such. A few hours once a fortnight isn't going to damage them. It sounds like you could benefit from some help with boundaries though? She can want whatever she wants, you don't have to let her have her own way on stuff like maintenance, name changes etc etc.

[PollyCinnamon]

But the childrens welfare isnt in question

[Fourormore]

Parental wishes are never paramount - the children's welfare is.