We were first contacted on 15 December 1999 by the social worker in Slough who informed us that they had become involved with a horrific case of abuse concerning our grandchildren and would we be willing to provide a home for them. As we had full custody of our eldest granddaughter we replied that we were more than willing to provide a home for these other children. We were further informed that if we stayed in the background everything would be all right regarding the children. On 10 February 2000 the four children were taken into care. On 25 May, the Guardian ad Litem arrived in the afternoon to introduce himself and explain his role in the proceedings. He stayed for approximately 3 hours and took no notes. Before leaving he stated he had arranged for the children to come the following day and stay for a short visit. The children duly arrived the next day for a week's holiday and returned home to their respective carers on 2 June. After their return home, contact remained with the children on a weekly basis by telephone, this was arranged through the social worker. It was also arranged at this time that a local social worker would visit us on a regular basis to prepare an assessment for the court case in Slough. We had a good relationship with the Slough social worker until 7 July 2000, when there was a court hearing and the social worker was changed. The Guardian ad Litem appointed a solicitor to act on behalf of the children, and a child psychologist. Between 30 August and the 2 September the psychologist came to assess my wife, son, his fiancé and myself. After these assessments were carried out all contact with the children was cut. We realised at this stage that we required a solicitor in England. On 8 September at our request the social worker that had been assigned to the case arrived at our house, introduced herself and outlined what had been happening as regards the case She stayed for about 2 hours and at no time did she take any notes. I later found out that on leaving my house she went to the local social work department and stopped the assessments being prepared since June. Court case was held in Uxbridge on Jan 23rd 2001 when it was decided that the two youngest children would be put into care. Since the case we have heard nothing from Slough Social Services about where the children are or if the two older ones are together. We later discovered that we are entitled to view all reports held by the local authority on us but to date all requests have been ignored. There was only one person who carried out assessments on the extended family and yet they state the clinical psychologist, Guardian ad Litem and social worker came independently to the same conclusion. The judge made his decision on the assessments made by all three and in fact marked out praise on the social worker in his summation. We asked through a solicitor in December 2000, for all the papers in the case but only received a copy of the assessments carried out by the psychologist. To date we have requested to see all the reports and assessments held by Slough Social Services but all requests have been ignored. We have now received a complaint form but only after a number of requests were made through the Department of Health. Everything that has been stated we now have documented evidence of these facts. Taking into account all the solicitor fees, court and travel costs we have paid out approximately £18.000. but like a lot of grandparents it is not the money. We only wish to know that the children are being well looked after and having access to see the children. If the law was changed to allow grandparents the same rights as parents then the costs of protracted court cases would be less to the tax payer through legal aid costs as a greater number of grandparents would qualify for legal aid. Grandparents may be the only persons who can inform these children in later years about their family and medical history. Sandra, a Grandparent from West Lothian and her daughter Jan had a fall out a ‘TIFF’. It was one week before Christmas 1999 a special time for all families, especially Grans and their Grandchildren. Sadly Jan took it as far as stopping her children from seeing their Gran who, as stated in court, was for the past 11 years a loving Gran until the tiff. During the next 3 years Sandra was forced to revert to court proceedings because of her daughter’s determined attitude. However, Sandra was always ready to resolve the matter out of court at any time if an agreement or reconciliation could be reached. Alas, Jan dug in deeper making all sorts of allegations towards her mother - none of which were true. Jan also managed to convince Sandra's only son that his mother was a bad person and that Jan's story was the true version of events. Sandra now has no family contact with either her own 2 children or her Grandchildren. I ask you all 'WHAT MAKES A DAUGHTER DO THIS TO HER MOTHER?' All I can say is Jan will have to live with herself and her conscience for the rest of her life. Over a ‘TIFF’. Many court appearances took place over the 3 years in question. Sandra's first solicitor dropped her when it came to the fight. Sandra's 'eleventh hour' solicitor, who is a fighter, tried his heart out for Sandra but pressure from the Sheriff even had him asking Sandra to call it off, but although the court proceedings were proving futile, Sandra was adamant, they fought on. The Sheriff’s attitude to Sandra's case was 'Grandparents have no rights at all’. (Prejudgement). Her solicitor was not given a chance to bring in solid witnesses to prove that her daughter was telling lies about her. It all came down to Jan's solicitor's cunning ploy, to state that the grandchildren wanted no more to do with their Gran - they simply did not want to see her any more. WHY? Why would 2 young children who, as proven in court had a loving, caring relationship with their Grandmother, suddenly not want to see her anymore - was there something here that the Sheriff was not picking up on? Can children of 10 and 7 (their ages at the time their ALIENATION took place) really all of a sudden, decide a person is bad for them? Or are they being brainwashed into thinking this by another party? These children, I believe, are pawns in a game. They are being used as 'power tools' in a game their parents are trying to win. It was proven in court that Sandra was a loving grandparent and that the separation from her grandchildren and herself started because of a tiff between herself and her daughter Jan. The problem therefore is between mother and daughter not grandmother and grandchildren. Sandra wants everyone now to know how she feels. This is worse than a death for her. She is grieving for 2 little girls who live nearby but she is unable to hold them, give them a cuddle, tell them she loves them - not even by letter (the Sheriff would not even allow that) they are 'so near to her - and yet so far away'. "No contact" as spoken by the Sheriff, means exactly that, no birthday cards, no Christmas presents, no phone calls - NOTHING! His summing up comments were, [Avizandum following parties submissions], (whatever that means). The sheriff did however note that he would be awarding no award of contact and went on to say, that, "what Mrs. Docherty had done to upset the children in raising this action was nothing short of a disgrace." If this so called "wise man" (the Sheriff) had really been wise surely he would have seen through this charade and told mother and daughter to resolve their tiff for the sake of the children. Families should be brought together by people like himself, not torn further apart. HE REMOVED THE PERSON, NOT THE PROBLEM. Although Sandra's heart’s broken she lives for the day when, hopefully her grandchildren will be old enough to decide for themselves if they want contact with their Grandmother. And I have no doubt that day will come. Until then she resolves herself to commit her time to helping other grandparents out there who are going through much the same as she has been through, and with her charity work for Grandparents Apart Self Help Groups she will push for the rights that Grandparents should have in this world (if no other reasons involved) the right of contact, not by the whim of another. |
