Court slaps ban on woman giving sweets to her own grandchildren

[Sunite]

Court slaps ban on woman giving sweets to her own grandchildren
MARTYN MCLAUGHLIN (mmclaughlin@scotsman.com)

A WOMAN banned from seeing her grandchildren because of the amount of sweets she gave them has won a legal battle with her daughter to visit the youngsters - provided she no longer indulged them.

Elsie Melville's contact with her four grandchildren was severed last March after her daughter, Donna Russell, grew concerned at the way her mother was treating the children.
Standard Life

When visiting Natasha, ten, Kimberley, nine, Brandon, six, and Ryan, two, Mrs Melville, her daughter claimed, would turn up with two carrier bags laden with confectionery. Eventually, Ms Russell, a 36-year-old divorcee, stopped her mother from seeing the children. Her decision coincided with concerns she had about Mrs Melville's domineering nature and her belief that she had called in the SSPCA to visit her home because of concerns about two pet dogs.

At Perth Sheriff Court yesterday, Sheriff Daniel Kelly QC outlined the antagonism between the two women. "She said the SSPCA visit was not the reason for stopping contact, but was 'the final straw'," Sheriff Kelly said in a written judgment. "Other reasons which she advanced related to her considering that the pursuer gave the children too many sweets and fizzy drinks, was domineering and interfering. She said that the pursuer would often bring two carrier bags of sweets. She said she had asked her not to bring them."

He added: "There was a problem regarding the children's teeth, but it was not possible to ascertain the extent of that problem, nor to attribute whether it was solely due to the sweets provided by the pursuer."

Nonetheless, Sheriff Kelly found fault with the amount of treats Mrs Melville bestowed on her grandchildren.

"I accept that the pursuer did give the children excessive sweets," his statement continued. "When there were sweets left over after the pursuer's visits - while it may have been hurtful to the pursuer to have disposed of them, and may have caused mayhem amongst the children - this would have been preferable to terminating contact altogether."

The court was told that Mrs Melville, 59, who is registered disabled, had been supportive after the births of each of her grandchildren and had seen them at least twice a week since. During the hearing, she offered to promise to the court that she would refrain from handing over sweets if she was granted contact.

"The dental health of the children is undoubtedly important, but I regard it as significant that the pursuer has given an undertaking not to give them sweets during contact," Sheriff Kelly said.

Sheriff Kelly ruled that initially Mrs Melville, of Perth's Newhouse Road, should be allowed to see her grandchildren for two hours, once a month. He accepted Mrs Melville's undertaking not to give the children sweets.

Speaking afterwards, Ms Russell said: "I just wish she had left us alone to get on with it. I felt I made the right decision and I still stand by that. I did what I thought was right by my kids for their physical and mental health. Feeding them fizzy drinks and sweets whenever my back was turned wasn't doing their health any good."

Ms Russell added that she would have no hesitation in bringing the matter before the courts again if she felt the current arrangements became unsuitable.

Mrs Melville said: "If I ever felt my grandchildren were hurting in any way I would stop seeing them. I don't know why [Donna] was going on so much about sweets - that's what grans are for.

"I bought a big bag on a Monday to last them for the week. It wasn't always chocolate. It was a variety of things. I don't know why my daughter did what she did. I'm going to make them sandwiches and yoghurt when they come round."
'GRANDPARENTS SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE, NOT PUSHY, AND RESPECT PARENTS' WISHES'

JIMMY Deuchars of Grandparents Apart, a Glasgow-based campaign group, expressed regret that the case had come to court.

He said: "Grandparents have a tendency to spoil their grandkids and give them lots of wee treats, but it's important they realise the role they play. A lot of people would say it is a grandparent's right to spoil their grandchildren, but it's not - the mother should have the ultimate decision.

"It can be hard, especially for single mothers, trying to cope, and grandparents have to respect that.

"A grandfather or grandmother should be supportive, not pushy. It's a matter of respecting the wishes of the parents."

Mr Deuchars

added: "It's ridiculous that this case ended up in court. When matters like these go before a sheriff, it can only damage the family even more and drive them further apart.

"This case should not have been referred to the courts, it should have been dealt with through mediation.

"Our group tries to provide educational resources to grandparents so they know the part they should play in relationships with their children and grandchildren. They have a major role to play, and should have contact with grandchildren, but they are parenting guides. The parents must be allowed to find their own feet."

Grandparents Apart believes there should be a legal "presumption" in favour of grandparents having visitation or communication rights.

This article: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Last updated: 24-Nov-07 01:36 GMT