Aims for a group to aid decent excluded parents, and those supporting them

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
I'm just speculating here about the possible aims a group set up to aid largely excluded parents/grandparents, (and others choosing to support them), might have?

My founding principle would be stated as trying to argue peacefully for decent parents and grandparents interests to be considered alongside the interests of the children they are being excluded from, and sometimes taking precedence over whatever professionals might now consider the child's best interests. 😕 :unsure:

At this early time in my thinking about the possible need for such a group I'm of the opinion its aim should apply to assisting parents and grandparents biologically linked to the children, rather than stepparents.

This distinction is necessary I believe, firstly to try to avoid confusion concerning those the group aims to assist. 😶

Secondly I'm trying deal with the situation where the rivalries arise between those stepparents (who consider themselves to be the "real parent"), and the biological parent. They may be encouraged in the view they are the "real parent" perhaps, by the other biological parent who the stepparent now lives with, and together they try to usurp the former partner from the child's life, (regardless of the biological link, if you see what I mean, becoming confused here already myself :mad: !).

Has the idea "got legs" do you think?

Are there any groups already in existence with similar aims?

Any thoughts much appreciated. 🤔 .
 

Last edited:
There are many successful US court cases to reverse parental alienation. Fit grandparents can successfully petition for access to grandchildren in the US. Not sure of an advocacy group or how court cases usually go in the UK...
 
Last edited:
At the moment I'm looking to set up a different group, mainly because I believe any parental grouping, or grandparents group out there will all fall foul of my first stated aim in the OP.

I do know about this very good group in the UK, (as the late Jimmy Deuchars who set it up with his wife was a good friend during my campaigning days):
http://grandparentsapart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Grandparents-Book.pdf
 
Academics appear to be considering the same issues I'm trying to raise:

"Abstract
This article argues that resistance to the Human Rights Act has built up in the context of disputes relating to children and that such resistance is founded in the attachment of the courts to the welfare or paramountcy principle as currently conceived--the principle that the child's welfare automatically prevails over the rights of other family members.

It argues that the failure to take account of Convention arguments could only be a legitimate stance if there was no conflict between the demands of the welfare principle and those of the Convention guarantees, but that in fact the approach of the European Court of Human Rights differs considerably from that of the UK courts since it seeks to balance the rights of different family members.

The article goes on to argue that, taking account of the Strasbourg stance and of the already established domestic recognition of the presumptive equality of competing qualified Convention rights, it is time to accept the adoption of a new model of judicial reasoning in the context of disputes over children--the 'parallel analysis' or 'ultimate balancing act'."

(I agree with all of the above, though unfortunately the above publication is behind a paywall, or requires some kind of qualification to access the full document, but here is the link in case someone can access it...)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600678
 
Last edited:
Here is some advice I need to take on board should it prove worth the effort to even try to set up a group:

"Create your vision and mission for the group
  • Start by describing the ultimate purpose of the group, for example: ‘to help parents empower each other through education and support’.
  • Using your purpose, write a vision and mission statement for your group. Your vision explains your end-goal and your mission outlines how you will achieve your vision.
  • Create smaller goals to measure the effectiveness of the group. For example, one of these could be to reduce the stress levels of working parents. Your goals, vision and mission should be clear, concise, and easy to promote to members.
  • Carry out self-assessments regularly to measure how you’re doing against your goals. This doesn’t need to be too official, but it might be useful to check whether you are all on the same page."
 
Here is some more aspects of the legal situation explained, or jeopardy faced by parents in the UK:

Quote:
"Parental responsibility and the paramountcy principle

Re K D (Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) ([1988] 2 WLR 398) ) provides a good example of how the individualistic conception of the welfare principle works in actual practice. In that case, Lord Oliver specifically considered the mother’s appeal that the right to access was a parental right protected by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR) and that to terminate access with her child would result in a breach of her article 8 rights. In deciding the matter, Lord Oliver held:

Parenthood [confers]...on parents the exclusive privilege of ordering...the upbringing of children of tender age ... That is a privilege which ... is circumscribed by many limitations ... When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the protection of the child the parental privileges do not terminate. They do, however, become immediately subservient to the paramount consideration ... the welfare of the child.

The idea of parental responsibility is concomitant with parental rights. Consequently, it has been suggested that the paramountcy principle does not sit well with the idea of parental rights/responsibility because the former is structured along welfarist principles whilst the latter is rights-based. In particular, it has been suggested that the principle goes against article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which provides a qualified right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. By encapsulating the rights of both parents and children to private and family life, article 8 appears on its face to come into clear conflict with the CA, which renders the child’s interests paramount. This criticism has become particularly compelling since the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which domesticated Convention rights in the UK (Herring 1999b).

However, it is possible (and indeed necessary) to expound an analytical framework which allows the recognition of both principles as being important for the survival and development of the child."

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/childcare/paramountcy-principle-analysis-8262.php
 
One of the obvious difficulties to be faced when trying to argue for more rights for parents/fathers/grandparents, is the behaviour of the highly manipulative, self absorbed individuals, and how the courts are expected to deal with them.

Here is a website showing some pretty stark advice, and I'll have to go away and try to think about whether it capsizes the whole founding aim of my proposed group in the OP:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/anxiety-zen/201502/forget-co-parenting-narcissist-do-instead

The concept of co-parenting with a narcissist does not exist.
There is very little research about narcissistic parenting, narcissistic family dynamics, or the effects that this disorder has on children. Complicating matters is the fact that adult children who do seek therapy do not typically identify growing up in a narcissistic household as the presenting problem.

The following strategies can help you redefine your parenting plan and learn to adjust to solo parenting so you and your children thrive.

9 Strategies for Overcoming Parental Narcissism

1. Minimize contact.

2. Establish firm boundaries.

3. Avoid feeling sorry for your child.

4. Vow to be calm, pleasant, and non-emotional.

5. Limit the amount of telephone or texting your child has with your ex while in your custody, and vice versa.

6. Teach and model social/emotional intelligence

7. Nurture your child’s unique qualities and independence.

8. Do not criticize your ex in front of your child.

9. Banish the term ‘co-parenting’ from your vernacular.
 
grahamg said:
One of the obvious difficulties to be faced when trying to argue for more rights for parents/fathers/grandparents, is the behaviour of the highly manipulative, self absorbed individuals, and how the courts are expected to deal with them.

Here is a website showing some pretty stark advice, and I'll have to go away and try to think about whether it capsizes the whole founding aim of my proposed group in the OP:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/anxiety-zen/201502/forget-co-parenting-narcissist-do-instead

The concept of co-parenting with a narcissist does not exist.
There is very little research about narcissistic parenting, narcissistic family dynamics, or the effects that this disorder has on children. Complicating matters is the fact that adult children who do seek therapy do not typically identify growing up in a narcissistic household as the presenting problem.

The following strategies can help you redefine your parenting plan and learn to adjust to solo parenting so you and your children thrive.

9 Strategies for Overcoming Parental Narcissism

1. Minimize contact.

2. Establish firm boundaries.

3. Avoid feeling sorry for your child.

4. Vow to be calm, pleasant, and non-emotional.

5. Limit the amount of telephone or texting your child has with your ex while in your custody, and vice versa.

6. Teach and model social/emotional intelligence

7. Nurture your child’s unique qualities and independence.

8. Do not criticize your ex in front of your child.

9. Banish the term ‘co-parenting’ from your vernacular.
Click to expand...
Okay, I have thought a little bit more about the difficulties created by the obvious fact some fathers, (/mothers/grandparents) do behave in such a self centred way, that a legal system awarding them automatic rights could be intolerable.

I have in mind a friend or mine, or former friend, who is an alcoholic, and I now believe someone who is or was very manipulative even before he became alcoholic. His four children have suffered dreadfully due to his alcoholism and unreasonable behaviour, at various times when they were growing up I imagine. One now will have nothing whatsoever to do with him now she's grown up and married, (mirroring what happened over my daughter I have to admit, though I hope I haven't behaved as he did). Another child does not have much to do with him, and the eldest and youngest are seeing him, but at times he has bouts of accusing them of only wanting to know him for his money, or whatever stupid notion comes into his head, (the paranoia that goes with alcoholism I put it down to, if I'm trying to be generous to him).

However, all of this being said, do I have the right to suggest this man is so bad he should never have been allowed to have anything to do with these children? Would the children have been better off if this was the policy, (there was a period of four years when he didn't see any of them)? The answer is no, I dont think they would, and I dont think they would say this themselves as adults, because my former friend has another side to him, one where he can be the life and soul of the party. He worked hard in his life, was successful. He was considered a man, and a man with brains and ability in his chosen tough profession, and he certainly stood up for himself.

So, what am I left with over my suggestion for a group to press for change to our legal system allowing "decent parents", (/grandparents), automatic rights, albeit very circumscribed rights?

Well, where I think I am up to is this........I could consider my friends behaviour as so bad he should be dismissed out of hand, but there is the rub, I wouldn't be being really fair even to this former friend, or his children would I, by denying even him some kind of legal rights, just because I believe I know better than he does how he should live his life, even to the extent of how he should treat his children, (we're assuming here he did not abuse any of them physically at least, which I believe is the truth).

Bringing up a child is not a science, and if he says he loves his children who am I to say he doesn't, (the "expert opinion" quoted in the previous post taken from a publication called "Psychology Today" does not mention the word "love" at all I notice). If my friend came before a court asking for assistance seeing his children, as he might have done, them granting him a rebuttable presumption of contact would not mean the courts had to assist him would it. The courts could consider his bad behaviour and decide not to issue and order, (a "rebuttable presumption" not being an absolute right obviously), hence I dont now think my ideas are not completely derailed here, even though I'm shaken to my foundations by trying to consider all the broader implications of the seemingly simple aim I stated in the OP, quote:

"My founding principle would be stated as trying to argue peacefully for decent parents and grandparents interests to be considered alongside the interests of the children they are being excluded from, and sometimes taking precedence over whatever professionals might now consider the child's best interests "
 
A few quotes might help:

"Why are men reluctant to become fathers? They aren't through being children"

"You will find that if you really try to be a father, your child will meet you halfway."

"A good father is one of the most unsung, unpraised, unnoticed, and yet one of the most valuable assets in our society."

"The nature of impending fatherhood is that you are doing something that you're unqualified to do, and then you become qualified while doing it."
 

Last edited:

Back
Top