Sign for grandchildren

The grandma in the original petition was not charged with harassment.
The grandparents of the two children who were killed in their parents' custody were given the same treatment.
Cut out of the childrens' lives.
My neighbour was warned not to harass her son.
Why? Because he didn't want her involvement in his life in case it exposed what his children were going through.
She has a note like that, passed to her by the oldest grandaughter, who has always, and still sees her.

I agree with you Summerlove which is why I posted to respond to VioletSky when she said "those who sign are doing so for the sake of the children".

Would you not agree that that suggests those who do sign are not acting for the sake of the children? It came across to me like that which is why I responded the way I did.

Like I said, if I could open the door for the good and the loving without leaving it open for the controlling, abusive, bigoted and hurtful I would.

Losing a loving family member

Being at risk of abuse

I know both and I know which is worse for a child

Yes it is a tragedy when a loving GP is suddenly cut off from their GP, when there is a healthy loving bond. I am so sorry Allsorts and I do relate to your experience of having a good relationship and being cut off.

I also feel for Violetsky who has clearly outlined her painful suffering and reasons why her experiences will naturally make her more protective of children's rights. Anyone who has been forced to do anything they did not want, or who has been abused will want to avoid anyone else going through such pain.

I think many of us do get triggered by some of the subjects here and all anyone can do is speak from experience, even when it's painful. I think it's not helpful to invalidate the experiences of others, though. We are all coming from different angles yet we all want the same things really- safe and healthy relationships.

I think petitions would show a much clearer picture if they had the option to be "for" or "against". Especially when they get shared in "for" circles often

Hithere

In the case of this gm (the original change.org), police is involved due to harassment to the gc.

The letter posted as evidence shows the handwriting of a very young child, who doesnt have ability to see the whole picure due to the age.

I’m not in the least surprised.

We wouldn't even let a parent peer through the fence at the children. We would ask them politely to move on. If they tried to talk to the children or take photos it would be reported as we have vulnerable children.

Harrassment and stalking too

In the case of this gm (the original change.org), police is involved due to harassment to the gc.

The letter posted as evidence shows the handwriting of a very young child, who doesnt have ability to see the whole picure due to the age.

I would never sign something like this b/c for me, it's the children who are the priority.

I have to wonder, for the people who sign this, what outcome do you wish to see?

That Grandparents can not be kept away from Grandchildren unilaterally across the board?
That the system is reworked to make it easier?
Something else?

My next question is, how do you propose your intended goal be carried out? What is your plan, knowing that some AC are cutting off contact because of emotional abuse that is hard to prove, to keep those children safe?

I believe that when we stand for something, anything, we have the responsibility to investigate the effects on people other than ourselves.

Saying, "it doesnt matter, I just want to see my Grandchild" (this is a generalized statement, not that anyone here has said it) is always going to be counteracted with "it doesn't matter, I just want to keep my child safe".

I have said this before but, until the two above groups find a way to work together in the interest of ALL, there will be no progress.

It is a tragedy when a loving Grandparent is cut off from a Grandchild. It is a bigger tragedy when an innocent child is abused because they can not be cut off from a Grandparent.

Agedp1953

Those who have and will sign are also doing so for the sake of children VioletSky. I don't think it's helpful to suggest otherwise because as you say "it all depends on perspective".

Myself, family and friends have all signed because it's the children who for us, are the priority.

I refuse to sign, because it’s the children who, for me, are the priority.

I can’t see a change like this helping them.

I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest those who won’t sign don’t make children the priority

AmberSpyglass

But if there’s a blanket legal assumption that grandparents can have access to their children, it’s going to make it MUCH harder for parents to sever ties with abusive - especially emotionally - or unpleasant eg racist grandparents.

For the overwhelming majority, people who have worked to have a good relationship with their children get to be active grandparents. Most of the grandparents who don’t have access, don’t have it for bloody good reason.

There’s the minority who have been distanced ‘unfairly’, and they all seem to be on Gransnet for some reason…

You’re right that the majority of grandparents have a good relationship with their adult children ‘and get to be active grandparents’.
Unnecessarily unpleasant to refer to those who have been distanced “unfairly’. To go on and say they all seem to be on Gransnet is offensive, inaccurate and goading. You do not have the moral high ground, here, much as you clearly believe you do.

Family breakdown estrangement is devastating for all, including the children in its midst. It’s worth remembering, the loss surrounding estrangement hurts, even if you have been distanced “unfairly’

Well, I'm glad you "acknowledge my story as I report it".

Now tell me how I prove any of it to a court of law so I can protect my own children when I can barely get an acknowledgement that what I said may be true.

Yes highlighting possibly outcomes or flaws in this idea is being a voice for the voiceless. In the same way past victims of abuse have shaped future safeguarding changes.

VioletSky, I acknowledge your story, as you report it. I have posted my reasons for not signing this petition.
In your post at 19.24 you seem to say you speak for the voiceless. You may be suggesting you speak for voiceless children. That’s an impossibility. You can only speak for the child you were. Anyone attempting to speak for all children is making assumptions that may be wrong.

It’s also important to acknowledge that many of the posters who did sign the petition feel they are voiceless, shut down, shut out and marginalised.

Remember. None of us has a monopoly on feeling excluded, feeling hurt, ignored and abused.

I'm not against loving family being in contact...

Why do people think that?

It's bizarre.

I'm just looking at the bugger picture

Your*

“Someone has to be that voice”But your taking away that chance for other children

If you’d had loving family around you at that time in your life then perhaps they’d have been that voice.

I think you’re experience strengthens the case for loving family to be in contact.

Just like all the grown children that were treated unfairly are, for some reason?
It cuts both ways.

But if there’s a blanket legal assumption that grandparents can have access to their children, it’s going to make it MUCH harder for parents to sever ties with abusive - especially emotionally - or unpleasant eg racist grandparents.

For the overwhelming majority, people who have worked to have a good relationship with their children get to be active grandparents. Most of the grandparents who don’t have access, don’t have it for bloody good reason.

There’s the minority who have been distanced ‘unfairly’, and they all seem to be on Gransnet for some reason…

Yes I've read extensively here on GN about your childhood VioletSky but not all grandparents who have lost their grandchildren have done so because they were abusive.

I don't understand why as it says in the petition, anyone would object to the continuation of safe and established contact. It is to me unjust to come between children and their grandparents, to in effect punish the good because of the bad.

That's why I've explained why not.

I've had an emotionally abusive mother.

I've been estranged from family members.

I've suffered through my mother trying to alienate me from my dad.

I've had a sexualky abusive grandfather.

I've had a grandmother who knew.

I've been neglected.

I've asked family members for help and been left to drag myself through it all.

There was no voice for me as a child.

Someone has to be that voice.

Sign, don't sign but understand my motivations and why I will always be a voice for those without one.

Read all the many reasons on this thread and really understand what you are asking for.

Those who have and will sign are also doing so for the sake of children VioletSky. I don't think it's helpful to suggest otherwise because as you say "it all depends on perspective".

Myself, family and friends have all signed because it's the children who for us, are the priority.

Those who won't sign are doing so for the sake of children. It all depends on perspective.

I understand the other side, I just think it will do more harm than help.

I don't think it will ever go through though, there will always be more people against than for because most parents, even if they are now grandparents too, would not want their rights as parents threatened

Exactly Allsorts as was said by others earlier on in the thread.