Give me strength

[Tiger13]

Hello, I'm new to mumsnet and would love to get some advice. My step-daughters mum has recently died and now won't contact either me or my husband. Her control freak of a step-father has commenced legal proceedings and even threatened us with a restraining order when we sent a message to step-daughter saying we loved her. Step-father is ASKING my husband to hand over PR and custody and of course given my step daugther is grieving and doesn't want anything else to change is saying she wants the same arrangements. We are looking at things for her future not the here and now but we are now being forced into a custody battle which we didn't want to put my step-daughter through. I'm broken hearted for my step-daughter but I am distraught that she won't speak to us and the longer it goes on the worse it's going to be when contact resumes. Everything has to be a fight with the step-father and it's just not necessary and is going to impact my step-daughter further. If anyone has had similar experience I would be interested to hear how you dealt with the situation.

Tiger, you seem very worried about SS not agreeing with your DH's decision to bring his daughter home. You do know don't you that they are not the people to make this decision.

SS do not make the choice about where children should live. They make recommendations when asked to by a court. Right now there is no court to involve them. SS would only be able to remove DSD from your DH's care if they can prove she is at risk of 'immediate significant harm' and they can prove it to a very high threshold.

SS may have sided with the mum and SF in the past when there were allegations from your DSD that she was assaulted by her mum and emotional bullying by the SF, but that should also show you the high level of proof needed to remove a child from a parent. They didn't have it then so they couldn't remove DSD, and they won't have it now to remove her from your DH's care.

SS won't try to approve a move for DSD from the SF because they have no need to. She isn't in danger with SF to their eyes and so they have no need to bother themselves in this case. They have a high workload and wouldn't look to create more unnecessary cases. However this is all irrelevant their approval or help isn't required here your DH can just remove her to his home perfectly legally.

Please, please look into alternative legal guidance today. You and DH need to be very clear with your requirements too, " I am the only living parent and I have PR. The SF and the school are being uncooperative. I want my DD to reside with me. What steps do I need to take to achieve this today".

If you are giving your current solicitor the benefit of the doubt he/she may have believed you wanted to raise the issue of ongoing contact rather than where DSD resides permanently and has rightly pointed out that SS would be unlikely to 'authorise' a change of residence. You need to make it clear that you and DH do not want their authorisation as you do not require it. You want your DSD with you. Now.

You may find you get an alternative response from the legal bods then.

If there is a Will and DSD (and DSS as he is under 18 still) and they are in it, then DH needs to look into this and make sure there is a solicitor dealing with this rather than SF. If not, or if there is no Will, then they may need legal representation to make sure that things are followed properly (assuming there is enough money). It is his responsibility as the only parent.

DSD has had time to respond now. Contact needs to be made somehow. If she is adamant that she does not want to see him then Relate? mediator? Counsellor? She needs to be in a position to explain her reasoning, alone, without SF in a situation that is non-confrontational.

Also, she should be getting bereavement counselling could school sort this?

School should not be contacting SF against the parent's wishes - they would not be doing that with a child minder, unless the parent consented.

op what your dh needs to remember is that whatever happened previously was under different circumstances because dsd's mum was in the picture. Now she isn't, and her sf has no rights.

I'm guessing the solicitor has advised that sf would be granted pr in the event that dsd continued to live there. This is why it is imperitive that your dh go and fetch her now and makes her home with himself/you before sf has a chance to go to court to say that the dsd is living with him.

And while I understand that dsd wants to be in the home that was her mum's, the reality is that this is no longer possible. Staying in that home isn't going to bring her mum back, it is just going to destroy her other family relationships. Getting her out of that house for her benefit is far more important than allowing her to stay there to hold on to a memory. There are other ways in which she can remember her mum, and your dh can get her help to do that.

Contact with the sf is something which can be talked about as time goes on. Personally I would be inclined not to allow contact given the circumstances, if he'd been a good sf then that would be a different matter entirely, but it seems that he is anything but a good parent. But what is most important right now is to get your dsd away from him.

i agree with wannabe

I think your DH needs to start being a parent and go get his child.

Hello tiger. How did today go ? How's your DH feeling at the moment ? He must be finding it very difficult knowing his DD is upset and not having even basic communication with her.

Maccie
He spoke to the solicitor to tell them what we intend on doing and they have said legally no one can do anything. Warned us that it could go against us in court. We are both terribly upset about it but now we feel we have been respectful and it's time to do what we wanted from the start and collect her. It's good to find so many people think we should do the same.
We also have a letter heading in the schools direction.

Oh that is good news tiger. It has got to be the best solution in the long term. DSD needs to know you are there for her even if there are initial difficulties for her to accept this.

The school really want hauling over the coals too for there lack of professionalism. They had no right to get in the way of a grieving child and her only legal guardian, and then to notify the SF as well is beyond belief.

I'm glad your solicitor could give you the right information and guidance this time. Did the solicitor have a way for you to approach DSD to make this happen ?

I'm really glad about your decision. Go get your girl back!

Perhaps the NSPCC can help you with some advice.

I do think that engaging the absolute best family law solicitor will be money well spent, atm.

This post has made me think. Dsd2 lives with us. If my dp died, I think she'd want to stay with me. If dss mum died, he'd probably want to stay with step dad or his maternal grandparents.

They are a few years older than op dsd, but I don't necessarily see that demanding things change immediately is the answer. The op dsd has a home with step dad, it might not be right for her to stay with him but assuming they've been living together for many years, it might be comforting to her as he's a link to mum.

I'm not saying she should stay with step dad but I think you need to be aware of the emotional difficulty for they household.

You wouldn't be behaving in such an overtop way as the sd though purplehen I don't think.

Purplehen but in truth it's not about what the children want. and unfortunately it also isn't about what the stepparent wants. Unless there is abuse or neglect involved there is no reason why a child shouldn't be living with their biological parent in the event the other biological parent is no longer alive.

Generally the arrangements as to where the children live are made between the two parents before any new partners enter into the equation, and while one would hope that existing relationships would be able to be kept in tact after the death of a partner, esp if there are also siblings in the mix, reality is that those with parental responsibility are the parents.

Now if we were talking about a parent who only saw their child once a year and had no relationship with them there would be a case to say the dc should remain in the current situation. But in the event the parents have a regular and loving relationship with their dc, then IMO the default should be for those children to live with their surviving parent with arrangements to maintain where possible a relationship with the stepparent.

This is one of the downsides of stepparenting which I think is often not considered. Because a relationship can be built between the stepparents and the sdc, but in the event of a split or death of the biological parent that relationship/contact can easily be lost, and there is very little the stepparent can do about it if other parties are not agreeable.

The SF nearly managed to achieve here though. He had managed to stop contact between the father and daughter. He was keeping the DSD living with him and if that had continued without the father removing her then he would have been granted PR as he would have needed it to be able to act in either medical help or her education. That would have also enabled him to claim for child maintenance, claim benefits for the child and would have given him an equal footing with her actual parent.

This has been a very close call

. Because a relationship can be built between the stepparents and the sdc, but in the event of a split or death of the biological parent that relationship/contact can easily be lost, and there is very little the stepparent can do about it if other parties are not agreeable.

Certainly in England and Wales, the Children's Act does provide a degree of protection for relationships between a child and an unrelated adult in the event of parental disagreement.

If a child has lived with any unrelated adult for 2years or more (whether that is a stepparent or other adult), the adult is automatically afforded the right to apply to court and seek a child arrangement order that permits contact.

If the stepparent is married to the DCs parent, then they are afforded that right if the DC "has been treated as a child of the family" - which includes non-resident children who spend regular time in the non-resident parents home.

However, the Children's Act also assumes that a child's place is living with their parents unless the are reasons why the child would be at risk if they did. It is not legally possible for a child to remain living with a stepparent (or other related adult) for anything other than a short period of time without Social Services involvement. It must be treated as a kinship care or private fostering arrangement.
Given what the OP has said about the school and other agencies response, and the risk of there being harm to the DSD longer term, then there is a very real possibility that this case could result in a review of procedures across the country.

Just read this.

OP what an awful situation.

So firstly here is for you.

I cant comment on the legal aspect but the only interpretation I can come to from the posts is that your DSD is being manipulated and you need to get her at home with you asap.

You have no idea what's being said to her behind closed doors and she needs to hear from your DH that she has a parent who loves her and wants her.

Money may well be the motivation here sadly.

Best of luck

Thank you

Is DSD at home with yourself and DH now tiger ?

Sadly not. My husband went to get her and the school wouldn't allow him even to speak to her on her own let alone take her homw. Communication is at least established. She has said that she doesn't want anything else to change. : /

So sad to hear that

In your circumstances I'd keep emailing and texting her and also spend whatever it took on legal fees to get her home.

Maybe you need to involve social services?

Where are the school getting their instructions? Surely they are normally not able to intervene in this way, so how are they able to do this now? Maybe you should talk to the LEA or the Chair of Governors or something?

How on earth do the school have the authority to stop him taking his child? Absolutely boggling.