Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Court slaps ban on woman giving sweets to her own grandchildren

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
24 November 2007
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.

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.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 November 2007 10:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/11/2007 01:53:08

Its a shame it had to come to this, but granny was in the wrong.
Why could Mrs Melville, just not have had it out with the old, 'battle-axe' instead of going to court?
Is Granny, Super Scary??

2

Scullion,

Canada 24/11/2007 02:09:13

There's far more here than meets the eye. The candy affair is only a symptom of a much deeper relational malaise between mother and daughter.

3

Boy Wonder,

24/11/2007 08:09:23

#2. Agree completely. The case still shouldn't have gone to court though!

#1 Charles, the old witch with all the sweets in the story about Hansel and Gretel was a fairy story, ergo not real. Get it??

4

Toast,

24/11/2007 10:24:04

Don't think I'd appreciate a judge telling me who could and couldn't visit my children.

5

de Hairun,

24/11/2007 13:05:01

Grans are supposed to spoil their grandchildren, thats what they do.

6

alex paterson,

embra 24/11/2007 13:22:09

Dont think Mum and Daughter get on very well which is a shame,patch up your differences and dont use the kids as an excuse.

7

Aoda,

Pennsylvania Wilds 24/11/2007 13:23:41

Being a grand and great grandparent I can understand both sides. I would tell my children that it is the parents that teach the children and the grandparents to spoil them. That was always said tounge in cheek because there are limits.

Yes, I spoiled them but within limits. I knew what standards they were being raised and I would just bend them once in a while but never break them. A few times I disagreed with some decisions my kids made in raising their children but also realiaed that it wasn't my place to try and change it.

Yes grandparents spoil their grandchildren but within limits with respect as what their children will allow.

8

Jeff, Surrey,

24/11/2007 13:32:15

The mother could have easily thrown the excess sweets away after a visit, without all this nonsense of banning the grandmother from contact.

Occasional fizzy drinks and sweets are not going to harm the children - No contact with a loving, caring grandparent will cause emotional harm.

It would be interesting to know how much contact the father has with the children, or is there a pattern here?

9

Ms Fiona,

24/11/2007 13:40:11

I have the mother in law from hell and I think I should get a gong as I have been the best diplomat in the Universe. But the adults issues have to be kept away from the kids she's still granny to them.

10

Alana Smythe,

undisclosed 24/11/2007 13:40:11

I can't believe this case has made the papers. How has this happened? This kind of case, due to the sensitive nature (i.e, concerning children), is heard in a 'closed court' setting. This means that only those directly involved in the case, e.g, pursuer,defender,solicitors and witnesses, are permitted in the courtroom. The media and viewers of any other kind aren't permitted. So how did a journalist get the story? As the story centres on Mrs Elsie Melville, it would appear she has contacted the papers in order to sensationalise her victory, and perhaps gain some financial award. These acts truly show the kind of grandmother she is - NOT the kind and caring, concerned about her beloved grandchildren type. If she had been concerned, she would not have sold her story, naming her four grandchildren, who are now highly likely to be ridiculed and victimised at school on Monday.

As for her daughter having Spoilt Brat Syndrome - if my mother went behind my back in any shape or form, as Elsie Melville has, I would disown her, emigrate, do what I could to ensure my children were protected from manipulation (and, in the judges own words, subjected to disparaging comments about their mother). The gran in this case should not be applauded for highlighting her 'victory', but should be condemned for adding to the distress already caused to the children by the 'falling out', and which shows a spiteful side of her declared innocence in that she has approached the media to humiliate her daughter, along with perhaps painting herself as the poor victim. The only victims in this story are those poor kids. I hope this hangs on your conscience Elsie Melville if those children are bullied at school as a result of this.

11

Jeff, Surrey,

24/11/2007 14:04:59

This story should be out in the open - Precisely because it shows what happens numerous times each days in the secret English family courts, where children are used as pawns by parents such as this mother.

The children are not this mothers sole property, they have rights as well. They have rights to know their grandmother who dotes on them and gives them sweets.

If the mother is humiliated then at least she should reconsider why she brought this matter before the courts in the first place.

It is a disgrace to go to court to ban a grandparent from giving children sweets. Any reasonable parent would have found a way around this without resorting to court and banning the grandmother.

This mother and Alana Smythe are 'controlling' and bullying in their attitudes using their children as pawns and wasting the tax payers money in the courts.

The only way to shame these controlling mothers and other parents into acting responsibily is to publicise their attitudes and ensure they cannot hide behind court secrecy to emotionally abuse their children.

12

Alana Smythe,

undisclosed 24/11/2007 14:32:57

jeff, you know absolutely nothing about me or the mother/grandmother. It is your kind of comments that cause cases like this! WHERE did you get your idea that this hapened "in the secret English family courts"? This paper is called "THE SCOTSMAN", this case was heard in PERTH in SCOTLAND under SCOTTISH LAW!!!

I don't recall having said I have children either, only having said if it was my mother, i would do what I could to protect my children. (No admission here as to having given birth as this was a theoretical comment!). But, back to the reason for the comments. Surely a mother cannot be condemned for trying to protect her children, be if from physical or emotional harm? In this case, Miss Melville felt she was protecting her childrens health, and from what I have read, their emotional well being. Is it right for the grandmother to make disparaging remarks to her grandchildren about their mother? This has been stated as having happened by the judge in his comments.

It would seem from your biased comments that you are perhaps someone who either has no experience of childcare, has been a spoilt brat himself, is a father with no access or a grandfather with no comments stem from intensive research and study into child psychology (degree level, not secondary school!!!), and is therefore taken from the concerned view of how this affects children. Remind everyone Jeff, who took who to court in this case? The grandmother took the mother. \we do not know what led to 'the final straw', as we do ot know the family involved, but it wouldn't have been a case of using the kids as pawns, as this (as stated in numerous media accounts) has been going on since prior to March 2006, therefore its likely access arangements have been sought prior to a court case. And in this case, both the children and their mother could be bullied or ridiculed, as petty biased comments by those who know nothing of the history of this case has proved already. The

13

Alana Smythe,

24/11/2007 14:49:00

The child psychology bit went a bit skewiff due to cat on keyboard! It should have read that I do know how this sort of thing can affect the children as I have done extensive research and study in child psychology, (at degree+ level, not at secondary school level). I have and continue to work with children such as Miss melvilles who have been involved in situations such as this, and a large percentage of the times the matter only reaches court as the pursuer and/or the defender cannot or will not agree outwith a court decision. All this can have a very damaging affect on a child, but to then have the childs name splashed in the papers can make life unbearable for the child/ren. That is why the case should never have reached the papers. Any parent or grandparent who truly cares for the child/ren would not have approached the media. Closed court cases are closed court cases for a reason - to avoid instances such as this. Even if this was not a closed court case, names should not have been used in order to protect the identity of the children. If people reading this genuinely care about children, they would agree with this, rather than making assumptions about what kind of mother Miss Melville is, or what kind of grandmother Mrs Melville is. However, Mrs Melville has displayed vindictive qualities gy approaching the media, even if this was not her attention. She should have thought of her grandchildrens wellbeing, and insisted the story ran in an anonymous vein, though I do not believe the story should have appeared in the papers in the first place.

14

Jeff, Surrey,

24/11/2007 15:06:55

#12,15,16 - Alana Smythe - Lots of words but most of it irrelevant as you have made it up.

Thanks for spotting the obvious duh, the case was in Scotland duh. That is the reason why it became public because in the secret, unaccountable English system this would have been kept hidden which is what I said. I was congratulating the Scottish system.

You are continually blaming the grandmother for approaching the media, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever.

The mother banned the grandmother and went to the court it seems and says she would resort to the courts again if the present court order does not work.

The grandmother has been there throughout the births and has visited the children at least twice a week since.

For the mother to ban the grandmother from seeing the children because she brought too many sweets is outrageous and indicative of a mother with 'control' problems. She could very easily have just mislaid them later.

It is entirely right that these situations be in open court and not kept secret otherwise we end up with a system as they have in England where commonsense and good solutions are lost because the courts are not open to scrutiny.

This court made the right decision, they have introduced a contact schedule with terms that ensure the grandmother does not give the children too many sweets. Lovely decision.

Yet the mother still says she will use the courts again if it does not go according to her wishes.

In England because of the secret, unaccountable courts the judgment would have been the easy route of just pandering to the mothers wishes - even though they are abusive to her children by keeping away a grandparent who has always been in their lives.

15

Alana Smythe,

24/11/2007 16:06:31

So Jeff, what is your opinion of the feelings and wellbeing of the children? This is afterall what my "Lots of words but most of it irrelevant as you have made it up" is concerned about. The children are paramount here, not granny, mother or anyone else. If granny had not been the one to approach the papers, why has the paper given her views/side in the first instant? Donna Melville has commented, but only in response (as appears due to layout of story) to what her mother has said. Therefore Elsie Melvilles actions could have emotional negative effects on said grandchildren who she claims to love.
if you were the parent these children, or at least schoolage ones, would you not be worried as to the effects this publicity may have on your children? There are possibilities of them being targeted for bullying when they appear at school on Monday. If you were their grandfather, would you happily agree with this publicity, even though your grandchildren could be targeted by others at school?

As i have pointed out, none of us know the history behind this, other than brief snippets collated from the findings of the judge presiding over the case. He has agreed that Elsie melville has in the past made disparaging remarks about her daughter to the children, he has agreed that the 'huge amounts' of sweets were too much, he has agreed that Elsie Melville's reporting Donna Melville to the SSPCA was the 'final straw' in what appears to have been a long and strained relationship. We know nothing else on which to base our views of whether Elsie Melville has been or hasn't been 'a good grandmother', we do not know Donna Melvilles other 'reasons' for 'banning' her mother from seeing the children. Donna Melville may or may not have acted appropriately in 'banning' mother from seeing the children. However, this is not what my concerns are, though obviously if we all knew the whole story, we could then properly condemn either side. As it is, and as I have said, i

16

Rabster,

Edinburgh 24/11/2007 16:11:01

It's clear from the story that the mother refused the grandmother permission to see the children but didn't involve the courts - it was the grandmother who referred the matter to the court, to demand access rights. The mother was simply saying she would refer the matter back to the courts if the grandmother didn't obey the undertaking not to feed the kids sweets.

17

de Hairun,

24/11/2007 18:20:54

Scots law only demands the concealment of the identity of children if the courts state it necessary which in this case it seems they didnt. However, most publications would not print the names in case the child/ren are identified and held up to ridicule etc.
I think the grandmother perhaps was a little too indulgent esp if it were two carrier bags twice a week, however this maybe down to thinking that by giving the kids this stuff she is showing that she cares. The mother must do what is in the best intrests of her CHILDREN. No-one else the sooner that people accept that the better. I am surprised that there was no offer of mediation for this case which would have been better for all involved especially these children.

18

Suzi B,

24/11/2007 18:28:57

I have great sympathy for the mother in this story. I have been in a similar situation and it has nothing to do with the kids and sweeties, let me tell you.
Behind this story I can guarantee there is a lifetime of Mrs Melville trying to control her daughter by dominating her and undermining her. By insisting she gives her children access to the gran, the courts have effectively handed Mrs Melville the right to continue to control, dominate and undermine her daughter, who by the way, is 36 years old, hardly a child and certainly old enough to know what is best for her children and herself. That's not a doting, loving granny we are seeing, that's a woman manipulating her daughter through her grandchildren.
If I had Ms Russell in front of me today I would say to her to take herself and her children as far away from her mother as she possibly can manage and then get psychological counselling to help her recover from a lifetime of having her boundaries crossed by her mother. I would say, never mind the financial cost, take the children and relocate, because if she thinks her life is made difficult by her mother now, once her children reach teenage years where parents naturally start to have conflicts with their children over lots of issues, the pervasive undermining by granny will lead to the children having no respect for their mother.
I took myself and my kids half a world away and it was the best thing I ever did for us as a family. For the first time in their, or my life, I was able to parent them effectively without interference and everybody has thrived.

19

Spoot,

Third rock pool on the left 24/11/2007 19:43:13

#1

Have you seen the photograph in the Scotsman?

20

Paula,

24/11/2007 20:52:01

There is grandparents spoiling their grandkids and then there is turning up with two carrier bags full of sweeties! Quite obviously this woman was out to make her daughter's life as a mother very difficult undermining her in this way.

I feel quite sorry for the young mum as this bully will probably go right back to her old habits. They always do.

21

Paula,

24/11/2007 20:52:42

#23 Spoot, no I haven't seen the photo either, why what is she like?

22

Jeff, Surrey,

24/11/2007 22:45:46

"The best interests of the child" Mantra -

Which is thrown around like confetti by those who don't have an argument, just slogans. No need for investigation or common sense or fairness to the children and others, just repeat the Mantra and do what the mother wants, even if it is abusive.

Because according to some for children are synonymous with the best interests of their mother, even if her behaviour is emotionally abusive to her children.

The children losing a grandmother who dotes on them and has been a valuable and constant relationship to them since their birth is not in their best interests as the Court rightly decided, which is why they made an order for Contact against the controlling mothers wishes.

As for any possibility of bullying or embarrassment well that is a bridge that can be crossed if it is ever necessary, as any other bullying.

The main thing is the Court has rightly imo decided that this strong relationship between the grandmother and the children should not be severed because the mother has a whim or is using the children as pawns, as many parents do with their children.

23

Kitti Kat,

24/11/2007 23:34:17

I wonder what the REAL problem is between these two adults? Seems that there's more than a candy issue. Gran could be an interfering old bag (I have a friend whose mother in law butts in on everything-from the housekeeping to how the kids dress) or the daughter could be a bit jealous of her mom. Who knows? They really need to seek professional help in order to spare the kids a lot or resentment.

24

Suzi B,

24/11/2007 23:35:29

#26
Just because the gran has seen her grandchildren twice a week all their lives and brought a huge bag of sweets 'to last them the rest of the week'(and do children need a supply of sugar washing over their teeth on a daily basis, I don't think so!) does not mean that her relationship with them has been valuable or necessarily in the childrens best interests. Political correctness and lobbying of groups like 'Grandparents Apart' mean that any judge or Sherriff is going to err on the side of the grandparents getting access as long as that grandparent isn't belting the kids during the time they are with them. To do otherwise is to invite lobby groups jumping up and down crying 'not fair.'
If this gran had any respect for her daughter she would not have made disparaging remarks about her to the children and wouldn't have undermined the mothers reasonable wishes not to overdose the kids on sugary junk food. The repeatedly bringing big carrier bags of sweets is nothing more than an 'up yours' to her daughter and is disgracefully disrespectful especially if she was bringing the sweets into the daughters house after she was asked not to.
If the sweets were meant as a treat she would have brought the kids one each as a treat, not a bag of sweets to last the week, which implies that she feels that children should have sweets as part of their daily diet, which we all know in Scotland (which is fast becoming the fattest nation with the worst teeth in Europe) is not in the childrens best interests. When you describe the mother of the children as 'controlling' and her behaviour as 'emotionally abusive' to her kids, what on earth do you call the behaviour of the grandmother towards her own daughter? Nope, your arguments just don't stack up.
The majority of grandparents are a really positive influence on the lives of their grandchildren and their own children, but sometimes you have to accept that becoming a grandparent doesn't automatically turn people i

25

Bob Ag,

Motherside 25/11/2007 00:38:53

Jeff's getting on one for the Granny! Go Jeff!!

But watch out for the grandkids!! they'll be wanting sweeties off you! Or perhaps you like torturing small children! here's the sweeties.....oh, bad mummy has lost them. Deary me. Now you see them, now you don't. "Just mislay them" - idiot.

26

Wat,

USA 25/11/2007 02:36:16

I would ask where the father is #1, and then where is this so called mother's backbone is#2. It appears to me that this women does not need children as if she must rely on courts then she is of no value to the children.

27

laffinboy,

25/11/2007 07:28:55

The gran is the "pursuer" therefore brought the case to court

28

Jeff, Surrey,

25/11/2007 09:36:23

#28 Suzi B - Do you always make it up as you go along.

The grandmother never made disparaging remarks about the mother to the children - according to this article.

As for the undermining mother tosh, well if a mother can't deal with the children being given sweets by their gran in an appropriate manner without taking, what is in the Courts view and many peoples views the draconian and abusive step of severing the relationship between the children and grand parent, good grief what a mother.

Anyway, the Sheriff has quite rightly ruled after hearing all the evidence that the mothers controlling and selfish action was wrong and that the children should see their grandmother as they have always done, well done to the Sheriff.

The grandmother was told off for giving the children sweets and has promised to not do so in the future and is planning to give them sandwiches and yoghurt in the future, well done to the Sheriff and the grandmother for seeing sense.

The mother however, threateningly says "she would have no hesitation in bringing the matter before the courts again". - Oh dear.

29

Dougie - Edinburgh,

25/11/2007 15:45:49

Presumably this stupidity is publically funded through legal aid?

30

Suzi B,

26/11/2007 00:15:34

#33 Jeff.
Did you read the full story in the Scotsman? Thought not.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.