Posted on 08/04/2003 12:52:11 PM PDT by GrandMoM
An expert on seniors says grandparents need to know the powerful influence they have on the lives of their grandchildren.
In his new book, The Grandparent Factor (Baxter Press, 2003), author Phil Waldrep looks at the pivotal role grandparents can play in children's lives, and outlines five principles to help grandparents make a difference.
Waldrep says he wants to help people understand that the greatest moral force in the life of most kids today is a grandparent, a fact that his own research authenticates. The author cites one revealing experience when he worked for two weeks with members of a Boys and Girls club.
"Many of these kids were not in church, and I came to realize that they really don't trust their parents -- but they trust their grandparents. And many grandparents do not realize the power that they have to help form the moral character of their grandchildren," Waldrep says.
The senior adults expert also discusses a study that focused on the reactions of children to the events of September 11, 2001. The study found that a majority of elementary age children turned to their grandparents for comfort that terrible day.
According to Waldrep, the study shows how important grandparents can be in giving children a sense of stability and safety. He explains that children often grow up hearing their grandparents' stories of surviving events such as the Korean War, Vietnam, and other historical conflicts and crises, so they turn to their grandparents to hear that things will be alright.
"Mom and Dad may not really communicate, but Grandma and Grandpa -- they have gone through crises before," Waldrep says. And this is what happened in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 9-11, according to the author. "Elementary kids across America turned to their grandparents to hear them say, 'It's going to be okay. You don't have to worry,'" he says.
Many people might suppose that these findings are obvious -- especially those whose own families have always emphasized the role of grandparents. However, recent events suggest that not everyone takes the significance of grandparents for granted.
Associated Press reports that Michigan's highest court has recently ruled that grandparents have no right to visit their grandchildren if a parent does not want them to. The 6-1 state Supreme Court decision upheld an appeals court ruling that the state law (supporting a grandparent's visitation rights) is unconstitutional. The case involves a dispute between Theresa Seymour and her former mother-in-law, Catherine DeRose, over whether the grandmother could visit with Seymour's daughter.
In 1997 Seymour's ex-husband pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child -- not his own -- and was sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. Seymour filed for divorce and was awarded sole custody of their daughter. The wife did not want her husband's mother to have contact with the child, but a judge granted DeRose visitation privileges. However, an appeals court vacated that decision last year, and the Michigan Supreme Court has now upheld that ruling.
Waldrep hopes The Grandparent Factor will communicate to everyone, including grandparents themselves, the importance of their presence and influence in the lives of young people.
On what basis? You are not their guardian, nor even the parents guardian. Any law purporting to grant you the right would be abusive to common-law, and merely a wrong-headed generation of a law to enforce a generally good idea.
Except in extreme cases (ones which would cause consideration of guardianship), it is the parents full right and responsibility to determine the extent to which you may be involved. They are responsible for that judgement. With all due respect, I think involving the courts in such is, more than anything, being pissy.
I would hope that parents - even those that don't get along with their parents - give the chance for the bonds to grow between grandchildren and grandparents (for a multitude of reasons), but it is certainly not the place for the government to intervene between the parent and their child.
Oog. That's a long drive.
....End of debate!
At the same time, and I think this is more to the book's point, I really have to question the wisdom of parents who Won't Let Their Kids See Their Grandparents. Unless there is some really good reason for going to this extreme (i.e. the grandparent in question is him/herself abusive, etc.), it seems unwise. In the case described in the article it's difficult to think of a good reason from what is told for why the mother should allow no contact with the grandmother whatsoever. I suspect that in many such cases there is an element of "revenge" or "getting even with" a former spouse which drives a divorced parent to cut off grandparents. Seems to me that the lesson to be drawn from a book like this is not that laws are required, but simply that parents really ought to think twice before taking that step.
My grandaugher lives 1 mile from me. I get to take her to school everyday and Papa and I are very much a part of her life. I don't know what I would do if she lived 1000 miles away.
Absolutely. To me this is clearly the case. One should be very hesitant to block the relationship with the grandparent.
...Seems to me that the lesson to be drawn from a book like this is not that laws are required, but...
My intent was to divide the two premises in the article: 1) That grandparents are valuable to the development of grandchildren, and 2) that laws and courts should enforce this. I agree that the second is not a lesson that should be drawn, but it is clearly implied by the tone of the article.
Funny story about my husband grandparents when he was little. The different names he and his brother had for their Italian grandparents were, NONO cut the wood, a builder, and NONO mustash(sp)no explaining there and Little NONI , not even five feet tall and last but not least he says, was Big NONI over 200 pounds.
IT's great that they had a warm, loving place with wonderful people they could fall back on.
It was very hard when they moved, even though it was just 1 mile away.;-)
I know what you mean. That difference between being involved in every little thing to missing those little things is big...but at least it's only a mile. :)
No argument there, although the legal example was set up with this line: "recent events suggest that not everyone takes the significance of grandparents for granted". This is vague enough that it's unclear whether the "not everyone" is meant to refer to the justices of the case in question, or the mother involved in the case. If the author was referring only to the mother (the circumstances in a celebrated court case illustrates how some people - like that mother - don't take the significance of grandparents for granted), then I have no problem with it. On the other hand, if there is some legal agenda being pushed here (which very well may be), I'm uncomfortable with that.
The most likely explanation is mere journalistic sloppiness which sees no difference between moral/wise imperatives and legalistic rulings :-) Maybe the author made no distinction between the two issues you delineate simply because the author doesn't/can't see them....
Best,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.