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.

[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.

[Fourormore]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!