Child arrangement court order

My concern is always the child. Children are fully capable of the same levels of stress, anxiety and depression as adults. A lot of adults just can't see it because children express it differently. Stressing the parent highly stresses a child who is dependant on them. I would never do this. Often forced contact will lead a child to estrangement later because they will associate the GP with stress. Better to wait and reach out when they are old enough to make their own decisions. That is a choice I left to my own AC. They chose NC due to witnessing abusive behaviour though.

agnurse mentions that if each parent has the child every other weekend, then if grandparents want to see the child it eats into the family time of the parent/child.

Something to bear in mind is that the resident parent will have the child all week (5 days), then their access weekend (2days) then another week (5 days) total 12 days, before the child goes to the non resident for their weekend of 2 or 3 days. Even if resident parent works full time there are still a lot of hours to be able to find a few hours spare for a grandparent.

Speaking generally and not specifically.

It doesn't seem much to ask that the resident parent could agree to grandparents having the occasional weekend afternoon visit or the odd overnight visit, be it at the weekend or during the week, depending on commitments etc.

Coolgran65,

The resident parent may have more calendar hours with the child, but it may not translate in physical available hours.

Children go to school, extracurricular activities, homework, etc.

Those 5 days the resident parent technically has are eaten up by responsibilities that cannot be avoided- no hours to spare for extended family.

So, resident parent really has two weekends a month to spend with the child, same as the non resident parent.

As a resident or non resident parent, I would really think twice about the occasional sleepover with grandparents, having so few nights with my kids.

I am afraid it is not as simple as you put it

I agree it's not just as simple as I put it, these things never are.
However i can't agree that the resident parent only has the same family time as the non resident parent.
Understood that there may be extra curricular activities etc for those children who are at school but resident parent still had bonding time during the week. I guess the value of school week time is a perception depending on what side of the fence you are sitting.

It still remains that resident parent has approx 12 nights on a stretch followed by only 2/3 nights for the non resident parent. And then back to another 12 night stretch.

And of course for those children of school age there are the long and short school holidays where there are no extra curricular activities or homework. Younger children being free of these limitations.

Its not about the resident parent "getting enough of a turn"

Its about a child already getting ferried back and forth between 2 houses being forced into a 3rd rigid compulsary contact arrangement!

And the child who has been at school all week having to spend their "down time" in contact centres or being delivered to contact visits

Would you like to be forced to live in 3 houses?

How does this sound to you?:
Mon-fri: house 1
1st and 3rd weekends: house 2
2nd weekend: alternate odd months house 3, even months house 4
4th weekend Saturday contact centre person 5 Sunday contact centre person 6

Would you like to have to always get in after a long week !on friday and have to pack?

Neither of my kids sets of grandparents are still married! How many pieces can you chop a child into?

No! Extended family who want "their turn" via court order, and dont see the value in the child having a primary home and one set of primary carers do not care for the welfare of the kids by default!

I know adults who have Sun-thurs room lets here due to contacts that are too short to move the whole family home, and they find it stressful and exhausting and detrimental to their relationship with their family and they're adults who chose it!

Some good posts Nonnie but all too often there is very little, if any at all by some, consideration given to the GC and GP's who are denied seeing one another.

It fascinates me how the vast majority of the posts on this thread are so critical of non abusive GP's when it's the parents of their GC who are behaving so unreasonably.

We decided very early on that going to was something we'd never do, and as our ES's wife was making as much mileage out of her belief that we might, I wrote to our ES telling him this was not a course of action we would take. I said we did not believe it would be in our GC's best interests to gain contact against his (we only had one GC at the time) parents wishes.

We didn't want sleep overs or full days, just a few hours now and again. At the time we lived only 15 doors away from one another so it wouldn't have been a big deal.

We just wanted to be able to give them their birthday and Christmas presents in person, see them in school plays if at all possible and taking part on sports' days.

Our ES and his wife decided, for no justifiable reason, that we were longer to be a part of theirs or their children's lives and were to stay away.

So there are cases where the conduct of GP's only becomes an issue when it's convenient. There are cases where the geographical distance between the EGP's and their GC is not an issue. There are cases where GC and GP's are denied that special relationship that they could have had, out of spite.

Rather than the constant berating of GP's who are so desperate to see their GC that they're prepared to go to court in order to achieve this, how about some balance? Wouldn't it be nice to see more posts that recognise that some P's are using their children rather like pawns, that they're keeping their children away from their GP's just because they can.

Smileless the point is that regardless of which adult was origionally out of order, court contact arrangements have a serious negative impact on the child.

Suing just piles trauma on top of trauma, 2 traumas dont cancel each other out.

GPs like you smileless are putting your GPs first by not having them pulled in all directions via court orders.

Multigenerational relationships (including the parents) is the gold standard.
Failing that, adults agreeing on contact between GPs and GCs is the next best thing
But court orders are at the bottom of the heap, they do more damage than GPs stepping back and being out of the picture.

Court orders are nothing like agreed visits. Nothing at all.

Wouldn't it be nice to see more posts that recognise that some P's are using their children rather like pawns, that they're keeping their children away from their GP's just because they can.

It is recognised. It just doesnt alter the impact on the child of being subject to a court order, and of having their immediate family taken to court!

Childrens court does not exist to determine who wins an arguement between adults!

GP's who are so desperate to see their GC that they're prepared to go to court in order to achieve this

Those GPs care more about their "desperation" to see the child, than they do about the child themselves and the impact the court process has on the child.

Truely loving GPs dont put their GC through that, no matter how desperate they themselves are to see the child.

Given that you fall into the latter group Smileless, I am surprised that you are not in agreement

Solicitors do spell out the destructive impact of court orders wheb GPs seek advice on this, and almost always advise against it unless the GP has has PR or fostered.

So the GPs who do it anyway have had the effects on the child bluntly spelt out to them.... but still want their go

Good post Smile but not sure you will get any understanding, just the same intolerant monologue in which I will no longer participate. Bitterness and blinkers won't ever consider compromise or empathy.

"It feels like you... don't think a parent is ever at fault or that people can work together for the interests of the child."

"Bitterness and blinkers won't ever consider compromise ..."

I know these comments weren't addressed to me, but they made me think... often, IMO, parents resist mediation or refuse to compromise w/ GPs b/c, in the end, they don't have to. Unless the court decides otherwise, they have full authority over who their children spend their time with and how much. For example, if the parents, sadly, don't want the GPs to see the GC at all and the GPs want to see them once a week, yes, they could compromise at every other week. But, to my understanding, the parents can simply say, "No." The GPs might have to compromise to get at least some of what they want, the parents don't. It's just not a level playing field, another reason the legal process is so often unsatisfactory for GPs, IMO.

Its not supposed to be a level playing field.

Children need to have primary carers who are deferred to in order to feel secure, not too many cooks all having a piece of the child pie.

Attatchment theory 101

Nonnie, reiterating facts is not an intolerant monologue.

GG feel better now?

I simply cannot understand why anyone needs to dictate to others on here, what do they get out of it? Being angry or sarcastic towards another poster says more about the person doing it than the one to whom it is directed.

Nonnie, no I don’t feel better. I’m not trying to upset you. Notanan isn’t either. No one is trying to dictate anything. She is correct in what she says regarding a child being the subject of a court order with a non parent.

Now, that might be difficult to hear, but it is true nonetheless.

She has put forward many valid arguments as to why making a child the subject of a court order is not in the child’s best interests, unless of course the grandparent has at one point been the primary carer to the child.

She is certainly not spouting an intolerant monologue. She has no choice but to keep repeating herself as no one appears to be taking on board the effects that such a court order has on a child. And she absolutely has empthay...for the child.

The sad truth is that this is a very polarized subject.

Yes it is Hithere.

That is the reality Starlady and is why, as you say it isn't a level playing field. Parents don't have to allow GP's to see their GC and if they refuse to compromise in any way, it's 'game' over.

"Bitterness and blinkers wont ever consider compromise or empathy" all or nothing and for so many of us Nonnie, it's nothing.

What I am not in agreement with notanan are the posts I've seen on this thread, and others that GP's who do choose to go to court are selfish and have no care for their GC. I'm not in agreement with posters who never acknowledge that not all EGP's have done something to warrant the loss of their GC.

As an EGP who chose not to go to court, I would not judge and/or condemn a GP who chose to go down that road. I find that approach particularly distasteful from GP's who are not estranged and have no comprehension of the pain that we go through, and even more so from a poster who doesn't know the love GP's have for their GC, because they are no GP's themselves.

Smile my sympathies, it must have been a very hard decision to make. It is good to hear someone who is tolerant of more than one point of view. You seem to recognise that there are always 2 sides to a story and anyone considering the child should know that. Let's face it the courts are normally on the side of the parent so if they decide a child has a right to see its GPs there must be a good reason.

I think I have a right to an opinion as I have not taken a parent to court and I simply do not believe that all GPs are selfish and have only their own interests at heart. If a parent denies their child access to a loved GP for no good reason then they are at fault.

I've said it before but for those who haven't read it, will these ACs change their minds when they realise they may be cut out of a will? Will they change their minds when their children grow up and cut them out because that's what they have been taught is OK? What damage does a parent do to a child by denying them access to a whole side of the family?

Perhaps we should all look at the bigger picture and not at our individual cases.

I've said it before but for those who haven't read it, will these ACs change their minds when they realise they may be cut out of a will?

No, I want nothing from my "controlling, always right" parents. All that I want is to be left to make my own best decisions for my children.

Will they change their minds when their children grow up and cut them out because that's what they have been taught is OK?

Your assumption on this is totally incorrect, that grown children grow up and just duplicate the behavior of their parents. In fact, my 2 grown children and their own families, have also cut out their GPs (my parents) due to the events and dialog they have witnesses from them (the GPs).

So, my parents have not only shut us (me, wife, daughter) out, but also shut themselves out of the next generation, as we have a grandchild on the way, and my own 30 yr old daughter wants her child to never be around such a horrible GP as she has seen..

So, be a little more open minded, that my kids may perhaps be pretty smart folks.

What damage does a parent do to a child by denying them access to a whole side of the family?

No damage in our case, only benefit! We have broken a generational cycle of controlling over-parenting, and they are just mad and blame us..

Victim much??

I am willing to answer those 3 questions but I am sure it will start another debate

It doesn’t matter if “the grandparents have done nothing wrong” if you accept that court ordered visitation is damaging for a child.

The grandparents could be absolutely in the right, and the parents are in the wrong. The point is, forced visitation is not healthy. It’s not a normal a family visit, and in some cases can be incredibly damaging to a child.

If you are willing to put a child through that, then yes, you are being selfish.

*assuming that the parents are not dangerous people to their children

I have another question on the same line, damage to the GCs.

How damaging is it for society to teach a GC that they are going to grow up in a society that the courts will eventually force them to make decisions about their own family against their will when they grow up?

I'd say as a GC - 'Hang the courts!' No one wants to be controlled.

"Please, be good GCs and understand, we the courts will be making life's tough choices for you, because your not qualified to do so yourself." vomit.....