Grandmother to give grandson to criminal father

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192391/Grandmother-devoted-life-grandson-5-forced-hand-criminal-father.html

By Daily Mail ReporterLast updated at 7:01 PM on 11th June 2009

A woman who has devoted her life to caring for her five-year-old grandson must give him up to his criminal father after judges ruled he should be with his natural parents.

The woman has cared for the boy since his birth and has fought his father, who has recently served time for racially aggravated assault, to keep the youngster.

But Appeal Court judges today upheld 'the immutable principle that children should live with their natural parents' when they ordered the grandmother to hand over the boy.

However, the court heard that the grandmother is refusing to give in and is determined to take her case to the House of Lords.

She will be able to hold on to the boy - referred to in court only as 'H' - until the Law Lords have considered her plea.

In a bid to defuse the family war, Lord Justice Wall told the court: 'The mother, father and H all owe the grandmother an enormous debt in this case.

'Nothing can take away from what she has given to H. Indeed, without her, H may have been taken into care and adopted.

'Whatever happens in the future, the grandmother will continue to play an important role in H's life'.

Urging an end to the bitter litigation, the judge added: 'Of course the future is uncertain, but we very much hope that the parties will now be able to cooperate over H and his future. It is very much in H's interest that they should do so.

'Dragging up the past and making criticisms of each other...is no substitute for H growing up in a family in which there is mutual respect and co-operation and in which H can move between family members without ill ease or disloyalty.'

But, ruling in favour of the father, the judge said it was the 'right result' that his rights as a natural parent should take precedence and the woman who has looked after him all her life 'should now resume her proper role as grandmother'.

Urging the grandmother to hold back from taking her case to the House of Lords, Lord Justice Wall said: 'Our hope remains that she will, for H's sake, say that enough is enough and will negotiate a sensible handover of H to the father's care'.

At Norwich High Court earlier this year, Judge Richards ruled that the grandmother should give up the boy.

He said: 'It has been said that wise or foolish, rich or poor, it is the right of the child to be brought up in the home of his or her natural parent'

He added that the courts 'should always have in mind, in the ordinary way, that the rearing of a child by his or her biological parents can be expected to be in the child's best interests, both in the short term and, importantly, in the long term'.

As the father - now married - was capable of being a 'good enough' parent to the boy, Judge Richards said he was entitled to precedence as the natural father.

In his decision today, Lord Justice Wall said: 'We have to doubt, as a matter of principle, whether or not 'good enough' parenting by a natural parent is necessarily more in a child's best interests than first rate parenting by a grandmother.'

But, despite arguments that the grandmother is H's 'psychological parent' and it would be in the boy's best interests to stay with her, the judge said that the courts 'must beware of what has been described as 'social engineering''.

Dismissing the grandmother's appeal, the judge, sitting with Lord Justice Elias, said he could find nothing 'plainly wrong' in Judge Richards' decision and he had exercised his discretion 'to achieve what we think is the right result'.

The Appeal Court's order that the grandmother hand over the boy to his father was stayed pending her application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Her barrister, Peter Horrocks, said a petition would be delivered to the Law Lords by the end of next week