Should “Grandparents Law” be introduced in Britain?

Many people believe in the important role that grandparents play in the upbringing of children, despite the fact that Western society has changed significantly over the past few decades, and that the idea of a connected family is quite different to that in many Eastern countries.

That being the case, there are still cases where grandparents are unable to see their grandchildren due to familial breakdown and a lack of communication, and it seems to be for this reason that the Conservatives have suggested that grandparents will be given greater recognition under a Tory government.

In cases where parents split and divorce, new laws could ensure that grandparents are still granted access to their grandchildren, or even be given priority in custody cases, depending on the circumstances.

David Shields, from the Grandparents’ Association, said that the current law means grandparents have no voice or say at all. “They have no more rights than a stranger. They don’t even have a right to stay in touch with their grandchildren,” he told the Daily Mail.

We hear stories of grandparents who, after sharing many happy times with their grandkids, and helping out their children and inlays, are told they can no longer see them because of acrimonious divorce and custody battles.

It seems a great shame that the only way for generations of a family to see one another is through the legal system, but perhaps that’s better than nothing.

In the ideal world, even in split families, children would naturally be able to see their grandparents on both the maternal and paternal side without the need for people to fight over them.

Children so often get used as pawns in messy separations, and grandparents could even provide some much needed stability in times of turmoil.

No separation is totally without mess. Perhaps a change in the law would help all those involved in particularly messy scenarios, while more amicable (or, at least, accommodating) families can sort things out for themselves.

What do you think? Does Britain need a change in the law to boost grandparents’ rights?

Judge rules name change for 9-year-old girl

A New Zealand judge has ordered that the parents of nine-year-old “Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii” must change her name to something without a heavy embarrassment factor attached to it.

Family court judge Rob Murfitt quite correctly stated that highly bizarre names create social hurdles as children grow up, and it’s not much better in adult life either.

“She fears being mocked and teased and in that she has a greater level of insight than either of her parents,” he said of the girl, who was known to her friends simply as “K”.

Two other weird names given to children were “Number 16 Bus Shelter” and “Midnight Chardonnay”, possibly in reference to a time or place of conception, but far less classy than the Beckhams’ son Brooklyn, named for the same reason.

One child was called “Violence”, while two pairs of twins were called Benson and Hedges. and Fish and Chips. Yet another family named their kids after six-cylinder Ford cars.

Naming your child after a pizza is one thing, but this sort of naming is just ridiculous.

(Via Yahoo! News)

Pennsylvania parents reminded of safe haven law

Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare yesterday reminded expectant and new parents that the State has a “Safe Haven” law which allows them legally and confidentially to ‘turn over’ unwanted infants to any hospital, up to 28 days old, as an alternative to abandonment.

While it sounds a very harsh way of putting things, it’s much kinder to both mother and baby in a situation where they feel they simply cannot keep the child, to be able to hand the baby, unharmed, to a responsible organisation without fear of prosecution.
Read more

UK Law Commission calls for more rights for unwed couples

A report by the Law Commission calls for unwed couples to have more legal rights.

It claims that most couples living together still believe they are protected by a “common law” marriage, when in fact this isn’t true.

The report calls for a financial value to be put on the contribution each person brings to the relationship. This would mean that financial compensation would be given to someone who gives up work to look after children, if the relationship ends.

The Commission denies that their proposals undermine marriage. Earlier this month the Conservative party called for a number of financial incentives for married couples. The two proposals aren’t mutually exclusive.

Read