Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Angry Parent - Court Orders Child interstate to spend time with Grandparent

Add Topic
I am a single mother with one child whose father died before they were born.

After the 2006 amendment to add grandparents to the law, I have spent 3 years and 45,000 dollars trying to prevent my child's grandfather from having access to my child.

I never allowed him near us as I fear him and believe him to be emotionally and physically abusive, his son has recently been charged with rape and assault, Yet a magistrate has ordered that my child spend time with him. During a suspension to the order due to my fear and anxiety associated with this family I accepted a job interstate that will advance my career financially and add stability to my working hours and give me more time with my child as it is school hours work. The magistrate has ordered my child return to her old state until a further order be made ( up to 5 months) I am fearful of losing my daughter and disgusted in the court for making an order that makes me choose between a great career or being separated from my child for months to see a grandfather ( the original order was for a few hours a month.

I want feed back from other parents who are struggling with unwanted grandparents using the law to interfere in their lives.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

did u actually ever think that the grandparent of the child (father thats dead) might actually want to be in the childs life considering that they have lost their own son... and grand daughter might be the only living thing left behind..... i think your letting personalities get in the way of your daughters right to have "family" somewhat.
What you may be forgetting is that your child has rights to know their paternal family.
If you want to be interstate maybe you could come to an agreement for time with granddad in school holidays and you bring child.
Thank god that there are courts to force people such as the OP here to have the child know and spend time with the "other" relative.

You are a discracefull person Guest.

Imagine how that $45k could have enhanced your child's life, yet YOU choose to waste it in the family law system.
You really come across as being bitter at being forced to put your child's rights before your own career.

Instead of blasting the system & 'unwanted' grandparents in general, you should be thinking of some workable plan you could put to the courts which may allow you to move but still facilitate a meaningful relationship between your child and the grandfather.
Wow I think you are all being a bit harsh with guest. If she has reasonable doubts about the grandfather, then she should be taking steps to protect the child. Not all people are good. I recently spent a day with a child protection officer as part of my job and the stories I heard made me ill. I can not believe the cruelty that  is inflicted on children by both mothers and fathers. For this reason I am losing faith with the concept of the child needing to have a meaningful relationship  with both parents. It should all be about keeping the child safe.
with you on that one Portia. Didn't want to say anything because I thought I would get my head chewed off.  Have people actually read the post.  Do people think that someone would spend $45,000 keeping their child away from someone just out of spite?  There would have to be a very good reason to go through that - fear for your child's safety!

And since when does anyone have to live their life for the child's grandparent's - surely some sort of arrangement could be made if the relationship was amicable.  It obviously isn't.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
ive since read the first post properly, if she has actually spent 45k (not legal aid) surely the courts can see any risk that might have been arisen by the mother? if there is drugs or physical abuse present mental abuse surely the court would have this onboard? the childs best interest must be paramount.
If the child is at risk then use a supervised contact centre, not cancel all contact.
where there is real issue of child safety then i guess protection is important.

Last edit: by MikeT

larissap said
  Do people think that someone would spend $45,000 keeping their child away from someone just out of spite?  There would have to be a very good reason to go through that - fear for your child's safety!

And since when does anyone have to live their life for the child's grandparent's - surely some sort of arrangement could be made if the relationship was amicable.  It obviously isn't.
 
I do believe people would spend that kind of money just to keep someone away out of spite - my partners ex is currently doing it to him and his parents. The amount of people who make up tales of violence, abuse ect in an attempt to alienate another parent/grandparent in the family courts is shocking. I think the real issue here is the child's father has died, so after considering everything the courts have decided the child should have some kind of continuing relationship with her deceased fathers side of the family.

The OP states:  I am fearful of losing my daughter and disgusted in the court for making an order that makes me choose between a great career or being separated from my child for months to see a grandfather ( the original order was for a few hours a month. If the OP could come up with some kind of alternate contact to put to the courts, like having the child talk to the grandfather on the phone every week, or skype contact (if both parties have computers) or bringing the child back in the school holidays for a day visit (supervised if their is genuine concern) then chances are she she won't have to choose between her great career and the child.
Frenzy said
The amount of people who make up tales of violence, abuse ect in an attempt to alienate another parent/grandparent in the family courts is shocking.
and on the other hand the amount of domestic violence that isn't physical, that does as much if not more damage than physical abuse, that is ignored is also shocking.  There are always 2 sides to a story.  ALWAYS. 

Frenzy said
  If the OP could come up with some kind of alternate contact to put to the courts, like having the child talk to the grandfather on the phone every week, or skype contact (if both parties have computers) or bringing the child back in the school holidays for a day visit (supervised if their is genuine concern) then chances are she she won't have to choose between her great career and the child.
  I agree Frenzy, that would be the best option.  So why didn't people suggest that before attacking this poster and making huge assumptions and judgements and telling this person she is 'disgraceful'.  No wonder whoever it is hasn't come back!

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
AdelaideD said
ive since read the first post properly, if she has actually spent 45k (not legal aid) surely the courts can see any risk that might have been arisen by the mother? if there is drugs or physical abuse present mental abuse surely the court would have this onboard? the childs best interest must be paramount.
   The courts do not always get it right. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 12 children that would still be alive if the court had not imposed access to the other parent. Unfortunately this will continue. The taking of a child's life is the ultimate revenge. Good on you guest for taking steps to protect your child.

On the subject of relocation, I find it difficult to believe a court can stop a parent relocating because the grandparent wishes to spend time with the child. The grandparent has raised their family so let the parent get on with the job of raising their child. There are the options mentioned earlier of communicating via computer and maybe some time over school holidays. This is surely all the grandfather can expect. We live in a very mobile society so it is impractical to think that a parent by the very reason of giving birth is expected to remain in a geographical area until a child grows up.
Portia said
 The courts do not always get it right.
Portia, I totally agree.  There are many many bad decisions made by the court.  I know of several personally. They didn't end as badly as death but the children were made to go to parents that were clearly not fit to look after them.  Mistakes are made because people pull the wool over the decision makers eyes, or the children are too scared during family reports to say what they really want.

For all the people, male and female, that make false claims, there must be hundreds making claims that are correct and it is too hard for the court/psychiatrist/ICL to see through to the truth in such short periods of time.  I dont' know what the answer is, but to make an assumption that all claims are false is as bad as assuming all claims are correct.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
The OP says she has been ordered to take the child back which indicates there was no initial relocation order sort by the OP before she actuality moved. This is probably something that doesn't look to good in the courts eyes.  I don't think the courts would have stopped the relocation if the parent tried to be reasonable about some kind of contact after the move (whether or not it's by different means, phone ect). The grandfather has only been given a few hours access a month so surely the OP could have put it too the court that it be made up in other ways.

It's pretty standard that if one party moves with out the consent of the courts or the other party to an order they will most likely be ordered to return, until the case is considered by the court. Rightly or wrongly this is the way it is for everyone. Including those whose have a court order with grandparents.
EXCUSE ME PORTIA,
WHEN SOMEONE USES SOMETHING SUCH AS "his SON has recently been charged with rape and assault" AS REASONING FOR WITHOLDING CONTACT FROM THAT PERSON, I KNOW WHAT THEIR AGENDA IS.

AND YOU ARE JUST AS DISCRACEFULL FOR DEFENDING HER. YES I AM ANGRY.

THE COURTS ARE FULL OF PEOPLE TELLING BS IN ORDER TO WITHOLD CONTACT FROM THE OTHER PARENT. GROW UP AND SEE THE FACTS IN THIS WOMANS POST
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets