Grandparents rights

Mr_Thrifty

You lot sound like a right bunch of sickos, suggesting they buy "secret" mobile phones for someone else's kids, follow them around at school plays, report them to social services for no apparent reason, and even suggesting they're in a cult or that there is DV at home just because the kids' parents have told them not to talk to the interfering grandparents and have some parenting techniques the grandparents don't agree with (e.g. labelling whose stuff is whose in the food cupboard, so they don't get carried away and eat each other's sweets and stuff). For info, 16 year olds do get stroppy from time to time and criticise their parents, and it isn't uncommon for some kids to be a bit frightened when there's a thunderstorm. The grandparents have no legal right to act as the kids' guardians (as confirmed by their own solicitor) and should therefore respect the real legal guardians' wishes or risk getting an injunction taken out on them. Additionally, some of your comments concerning their (possible but unconfirmed) choice of religion is frankly offensive. So what if they're Jehova's Witnesses?? You should hang your heads in shame.

BitterAndTwisted

I'm not hanging anything. What kind of parents tell their children that they should not discuss what happens at home with people outside the family? What kind of family-life is it when a child of 16 leaves home and hopes the others can too so that she can see them? What kind of parents won't allow anyone on the dead wife's side of the family any contact with them? Even the auntie who practically brought up one of them?

It's their alleged choice of religion and the one mentioned is a crackpot cult. A most unhealthy one at that.

Many thanks for your censure, it has been duly noted and then discarded as useless.

Mr_Thrifty

I'm not hanging anything. What kind of parents tell their children that they should not discuss what happens at home with people outside the family?

Ones that value their privacy and don't like interfering outsiders constantly sticking their nose in?

What kind of family-life is it when a child of 16 leaves home and hopes the others can too so that she can see them?

Just sounds like a typical stroppy teenager to me.

What kind of parents won't allow anyone on the dead wife's side of the family any contact with them? Even the auntie who practically brought up one of them?

Maybe he just wants to move on with life and leave the past behind. And who knows what the full circumstances are, maybe he never got on with them and simply doesn't want to stay in contact?

It's their alleged choice of religion and the one mentioned is a crackpot cult. A most unhealthy one at that.

Jehovas Witnesses are pretty mainstream and to say what you've said is basically religious discrimination, which most people these days find offensive. And besides, what evidence do you have that they're Jehovas Witnesses anyway? This is all pure conjecture on your part.

Money_maker

dissy wrote: »

The mums brother went to visit them at xmas but she told him to leave as he did not arrange prior to see them.

I think it is this in conjunction with meeting up away from the house and not allowing visitors. I don't think it is JW or a cult but something very fishy is going on. Shame on the dad.

Mr_Thrifty

The mums brother went to visit them at xmas but she told him to leave as he did not arrange prior to see them.

Hmm, I don't want to be unduly controversial, but if my ex-inlaws turned up unannounced on Xmas day, I'd be concerned about how my new partner might view this situation and would also tell them to go away!

I think it is this in conjunction with meeting up away from the house and not allowing visitors. I don't think it is JW or a cult but something very fishy is going on. Shame on the dad.

Maybe the new lady of the house simply doesn't want ex-inlaws hanging around her new nest and would rather that these kinds of meet-ups take place elsewhere? Surely that's at least somewhat understandable?

BitterAndTwisted

Mr_Thrifty wrote: »

Jehovas Witnesses are pretty mainstream and to say what you've said is basically religious discrimination, which most people these days find offensive. And besides, what evidence do you have that they're Jehovas Witnesses anyway? This is all pure conjecture on your part.

JW is not mainstream, far from it. In my opinion they are a strange cult and voicing such an opinion is not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination. It's just an opinion.

No-one has any evidence and that's why their involvement was suggested as a possibility. These parents could belong to something even more pernicious, intentionally devisive and dangerous like the Moonies or the $cientologists.

You sound quite defensive, why is that?

Mr_Thrifty

No-one has any evidence and that's why their involvement was suggested as a possibility.

Remind us, how exactly did you reach the conclusion that they might be JWs? Furthermore, what relevance does it have if they are indeed JWs? I am not a JW by the way.