Grandparents rights?

[Harriet Vane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetbasil View Post

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

 

:iagree: The argument for GPR seems to be either or a combination of:

 

"I'm emotionally attached and it's just mean to deny that attachment, so I have a right to force a parent to allow it."

 

And or

 

"I have spent a lot of time with them and miss doing so and they liked spending time with me. So I now have a right to demand the parent permit me to continue spending time with the child."

 

And or

 

"I share genetics, that gives me a right to access those kids."

 

Not only do I not agree that any of that grants a non parent rights, I shudder to think how that definition of child custody rights could be misused and interpreted.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Hoot]

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

 

Oh I completely understand what you're saying and I'm not for grandparent's rights as a broad sweeping law at all. For me, as a teenager; however, I was glad that this meant my parents weren't able to cut my grandparents out of my life. As an adult; however, I can see where that could lead. I can see how this could even come back to bite me in the butt if my own dad & step-mom were to try to sue US for grandparent's rights. I do acknowledge though, based on my own experiences, that sometimes the parents are not acting in the best interest of the child. It's hard to know where to draw the line with government intervention, but I would personally err on the side of less interference.

Edited September 20, 2012 by contessa20

[Murphy101]

Oh I completely understand what you're saying and I'm not for grandparent's rights as a broad sweeping law at all. For me, as a teenager; however, I was glad that this meant my parents weren't able to cut my grandparents out of my life. As an adult; however, I can see where that could lead. I can see how this could even come back to bite me in the butt if my own dad & step-mom were to try to sue US for grandparent's rights. I do acknowledge though, based on my own experiences, that sometimes the parents are not acting in the best interest of the child. It's hard to know where to draw the line with government intervention, but I would personally err on the side of less interference.

 

Here is the deal though:

 

If the parents are not being abusive, then they don't have to act in the child's supposed best interests according to anyone else. It's really that simple. In fact, one could easily argue that a grandparent putting the parent and child through the wringer like that isn't putting the child's best interests first anymore than the parent. I'm having a hard time picturing any family where that doesn't make the child's home far more stressful and unpleasant in many ways even if the parent tries hard not to show it.

 

And of course abuse is an entirely different scenario.

 

I'd not be happy to stop at visitation if I truly felt my grandchildren were being abused. I'd fight hard for full custody in that situation.

[Jenny in Florida]

If the parents are not being abusive, then they don't have to act in the child's supposed best interests according to anyone else. It's really that simple. In fact, one could easily argue that a grandparent putting the parent and child through the wringer like that isn't putting the child's best interests first anymore than the parent. I'm having a hard time picturing any family where that doesn't make the child's home far more stressful and unpleasant in many ways even if the parent tries hard not to show it.

 

Give the lady a cigar.

 

Here's the thing: Parents have no legal obligation to be "perfect." In fact, they don't even have a legal obligation to be good parents. They're just not supposed to be demonstratbly bad ones. They have a right to make decisions that don't always put their kids' happiness at the top of the priorities list. If I'm being honest with myself, I'll admit that I often have to balance one child's wants/needs against those of the rest of the family. And I, as a parent, have the right to do that.

 

In this country, there is a long-established legal tradition of giving parents wide discretion with regard to how they raise children. And most of us do things every day that some other party might think isn't "best."

 

For example, one parent takes a job that provides a high salary and offers that person's children all kinds of material advantages -- great private schools, a big house, excellent food, nice clothing, etc. However, the children don't see much of that parent, because he or she is always working.

 

Another parent makes the choice to take a less stressful job that allows him/her more time with the kids and the flexibility to be around to volunteer at the public school or even to homeschool, help with homework, cook simple but healthy meals, etc. The trade-off is that this parent makes much less money.

 

Which approach is in the children's "best interest?" Who gets to decide?

 

Legally, the answer is that each parent or set of parents has the right to make these decisions, and, short of "abuse" (which is a whole lot higher standard than most people seem to believe), they have the right to make these decisions without having to justify themselves to others who are not the children's parents.

 

Third-party rights and visitation interferese with this basic idea. It interferes with parental rights and family stability in a way that is drastic. And I fail to see who creating this kind of animosity between parties, showing children that their parents aren't really in control, putting third parties in the middle of a parent-child relationship and so on is "good" for kids.

[FaithManor]

Give the lady a cigar.

 

Here's the thing: Parents have no legal obligation to be "perfect." In fact, they don't even have a legal obligation to be good parents. They're just not supposed to be demonstratbly bad ones. They have a right to make decisions that don't always put their kids' happiness at the top of the priorities list. If I'm being honest with myself, I'll admit that I often have to balance one child's wants/needs against those of the rest of the family. And I, as a parent, have the right to do that.

 

In this country, there is a long-established legal tradition of giving parents wide discretion with regard to how they raise children. And most of us do things every day that some other party might think isn't "best."

 

For example, one parent takes a job that provides a high salary and offers that person's children all kinds of material advantages -- great private schools, a big house, excellent food, nice clothing, etc. However, the children don't see much of that parent, because he or she is always working.

 

Another parent makes the choice to take a less stressful job that allows him/her more time with the kids and the flexibility to be around to volunteer at the public school or even to homeschool, help with homework, cook simple but healthy meals, etc. The trade-off is that this parent makes much less money.

 

Which approach is in the children's "best interest?" Who gets to decide?

 

Legally, the answer is that each parent or set of parents has the right to make these decisions, and, short of "abuse" (which is a whole lot higher standard than most people seem to believe), they have the right to make these decisions without having to justify themselves to others who are not the children's parents.

 

Third-party rights and visitation interferese with this basic idea. It interferes with parental rights and family stability in a way that is drastic. And I fail to see who creating this kind of animosity between parties, showing children that their parents aren't really in control, putting third parties in the middle of a parent-child relationship and so on is "good" for kids.

 

 

Hip, Hip, Hooray! :hurray: Give yourself a cigar!

 

Faith

[Kathryn]

Here is the deal though:

 

If the parents are not being abusive, then they don't have to act in the child's supposed best interests according to anyone else. It's really that simple. In fact, one could easily argue that a grandparent putting the parent and child through the wringer like that isn't putting the child's best interests first anymore than the parent. I'm having a hard time picturing any family where that doesn't make the child's home far more stressful and unpleasant in many ways even if the parent tries hard not to show it.

 

And of course abuse is an entirely different scenario.

 

I'd not be happy to stop at visitation if I truly felt my grandchildren were being abused. I'd fight hard for full custody in that situation.

 

Give the lady a cigar.

 

Here's the thing: Parents have no legal obligation to be "perfect." In fact, they don't even have a legal obligation to be good parents. They're just not supposed to be demonstratbly bad ones. They have a right to make decisions that don't always put their kids' happiness at the top of the priorities list. If I'm being honest with myself, I'll admit that I often have to balance one child's wants/needs against those of the rest of the family. And I, as a parent, have the right to do that.

 

In this country, there is a long-established legal tradition of giving parents wide discretion with regard to how they raise children. And most of us do things every day that some other party might think isn't "best."

 

For example, one parent takes a job that provides a high salary and offers that person's children all kinds of material advantages -- great private schools, a big house, excellent food, nice clothing, etc. However, the children don't see much of that parent, because he or she is always working.

 

Another parent makes the choice to take a less stressful job that allows him/her more time with the kids and the flexibility to be around to volunteer at the public school or even to homeschool, help with homework, cook simple but healthy meals, etc. The trade-off is that this parent makes much less money.

 

Which approach is in the children's "best interest?" Who gets to decide?

 

Legally, the answer is that each parent or set of parents has the right to make these decisions, and, short of "abuse" (which is a whole lot higher standard than most people seem to believe), they have the right to make these decisions without having to justify themselves to others who are not the children's parents.

 

Third-party rights and visitation interferese with this basic idea. It interferes with parental rights and family stability in a way that is drastic. And I fail to see who creating this kind of animosity between parties, showing children that their parents aren't really in control, putting third parties in the middle of a parent-child relationship and so on is "good" for kids.

 

:iagree: with these and many others. I don't believe in anyone having rights or visitation with someone's children besides the parents themselves. We almost had situation like this in DH's family. Thankfully, the grandparent decided against it when she found out how much it would cost her. She was just being vindictive anyway, as she hasn't spoken to her daughter or the grandson since she moved out thirteen years ago.

[Impish]

Here is the deal though:

 

If the parents are not being abusive, then they don't have to act in the child's supposed best interests according to anyone else. It's really that simple. In fact, one could easily argue that a grandparent putting the parent and child through the wringer like that isn't putting the child's best interests first anymore than the parent. I'm having a hard time picturing any family where that doesn't make the child's home far more stressful and unpleasant in many ways even if the parent tries hard not to show it.

 

And of course abuse is an entirely different scenario.

 

I'd not be happy to stop at visitation if I truly felt my grandchildren were being abused. I'd fight hard for full custody in that situation.

:iagree:

Give the lady a cigar.

 

Here's the thing: Parents have no legal obligation to be "perfect." In fact, they don't even have a legal obligation to be good parents. They're just not supposed to be demonstratbly bad ones. They have a right to make decisions that don't always put their kids' happiness at the top of the priorities list. If I'm being honest with myself, I'll admit that I often have to balance one child's wants/needs against those of the rest of the family. And I, as a parent, have the right to do that.

 

In this country, there is a long-established legal tradition of giving parents wide discretion with regard to how they raise children. And most of us do things every day that some other party might think isn't "best."

 

For example, one parent takes a job that provides a high salary and offers that person's children all kinds of material advantages -- great private schools, a big house, excellent food, nice clothing, etc. However, the children don't see much of that parent, because he or she is always working.

 

Another parent makes the choice to take a less stressful job that allows him/her more time with the kids and the flexibility to be around to volunteer at the public school or even to homeschool, help with homework, cook simple but healthy meals, etc. The trade-off is that this parent makes much less money.

 

Which approach is in the children's "best interest?" Who gets to decide?

 

Legally, the answer is that each parent or set of parents has the right to make these decisions, and, short of "abuse" (which is a whole lot higher standard than most people seem to believe), they have the right to make these decisions without having to justify themselves to others who are not the children's parents.

 

Third-party rights and visitation interferese with this basic idea. It interferes with parental rights and family stability in a way that is drastic. And I fail to see who creating this kind of animosity between parties, showing children that their parents aren't really in control, putting third parties in the middle of a parent-child relationship and so on is "good" for kids.

:iagree:

 

One of the many reasons I was grateful to be several provinces away from my nut bunny mother when I cut off contact is that there is no way for her to attempt to go for visitation.

 

Depending on the province, she *could* go for it. My current province, no. Wolf and I would have to be sperated/divorced/dead. In my home province, I think she has to prove that she's been a regular part of the children's lives.

 

Being so far away, there's no way she can meet that burden of proof.

 

She wouldn't *dream* of pursuing such action w/my brothers (they've gone NC w/her and she didn't) but I know that she has no hesitation in pulling such a stunt w/me.

[Alicia64]

And this is why I'm against "grandparents' rights". They are the children of the parents, not the grandparents. The parents sometimes have excellent reasons for breaking contact. This would be a horrible thing to put parents through that are trying to raise their children in a stable home without toxic people in their children's lives. I like the fact that I get to choose whether or not a grandparent is in my child's live and which grandparents. My kids don't need to be around and NPD grandparent that does nothing by treat them like carp.

 

:hurray:

 

Our cultures need to get beyond the idea that grandparents are cozy, wonderful people. My two parents are both NPD and one of my sons said after the last visit, "I don't feel safe with them. I don't want to be around them anymore. You were being raised by people who aren't 'right.' Did you know you were being raised by people who weren't 'right?'"

 

Don't worry: he's safe. I'm totally protecting him from my parents. I just never thought they'd turn on him -- their own grandchild -- the way they did. But it makes sense, I guess, I was a sweet kid and they were very abusive to me.

 

Grandparents don't equal wonderful, bottomless love. They're people. Some are wonderful, but some are awful.

 

Alley

[frugalmama]

Not all grandparents suing for rights are bad, just as not all parents are good. Please do not quote as I may want to remove later.

 

In our case, we want to know the kids are safe & happy - that's all. We would be happy with just a weekly 20 minute phone call {on our dime} or even an email from the kids to maintain contact, which I don't really feel is too much to ask.

 

I have serious concerns about her ability to parent responsibly. She is a step-parent who adopted my niece and nephew just days before my brother passed away, and I know he had doubts about her, as evidenced by the fact that he put the family farm in trust with a trustee rather than give her control of it, and the kids won't get access until they are 21. She has a mental disorder and a history of not taking her medication and / or drinking while on medication. She has a drinking problem and I have known several instances where either she was driving drunk with the kids in the car or the kids had to drive her home because she wasn't capable of driving. I worry that CPS will pick up the kids for being in an unfit home because she has 10-12 people living in a very small 3 bed house PLUS she breeds dogs who all live inside the house {normally the parent dogs plus at least 2 litters of pups}.

[Impish]

But FrugalMama, that sounds like CPS issues. Not 'just' gpa rights.

 

When children are endangered, it completely changes the landscape, imo.

 

Big diff btwn that and gpa going after visitation rights simply b/c parents have decided against it.

[Jenny in Florida]

If grandparents have concerns about a parent's fitness, by all means do your best to keep in touch. And if you genuinely believe children are in danger, that is a different issue, one that should be taken up with CPS.

 

What I can tell any grandparent considering this step is that suing for rights is absolutely guaranteed to make your relationship with a parent/parents worse than it is now. And it will likely make the children's lives more turbulent and stressful. I believe your best bet is to try to get along with the parent/parents as best you can in order to earn a place in the children's lives.

[Jennifer3141]

:hurray:

 

Our cultures need to get beyond the idea that grandparents are cozy, wonderful people. My two parents are both NPD and one of my sons said after the last visit, "I don't feel safe with them. I don't want to be around them anymore. You were being raised by people who aren't 'right.' Did you know you were being raised by people who weren't 'right?'"

 

Don't worry: he's safe. I'm totally protecting him from my parents. I just never thought they'd turn on him -- their own grandchild -- the way they did. But it makes sense, I guess, I was a sweet kid and they were very abusive to me.

 

Grandparents don't equal wonderful, bottomless love. They're people. Some are wonderful, but some are awful.

 

Alley

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

We do tend to have this view of grandmothers that they are adorable little old ladies sitting there knitting and making homemade cookies. And some of them are flaming nuts.

 

There are often reasons for people moving away from their parents that go beyond economics.

 

I love my mother. I am grateful to her for keeping me alive when I was a crazy two year old, etc. Would I want my children to spend extended amounts of time with her unsupervised? ^%$@ NO.