“In family breakdowns, grandchildren can grow up deprived of ready warmth, encouragement, presents and shared experiences. They, along with the cast-out grandparents, are victims,” writes HUGH SELBY. 

Every so often a reader asks for the impossible. Like last week, when I was asked to write about the causes and remedies when a daughter-in-law induces the son to cut off any access by his parents to the grandchildren.

It was a blinkered request, reflecting the grief experience of the requester. Who doesn’t have a friend or family member who is alienated from a sibling, an adult child or parent?

The omission of grandchildren in the above list was no oversight. Leaving aside predatory sexual deviance towards a grandchild, untoward violence, substance abuse or mental illness, their separation from grandparents is more likely to be the result of a real or imagined slight by those grandparents of one of the kid’s parents. 

Which just goes to show that the admonition, “sticks and stones can hurt my bones but names will never hurt me” is more honoured in the breach than the observance.

And so the grandchild or grandchildren grow up deprived of ready warmth, encouragement, presents, shared experiences. They, along with the cast-out grandparents, are victims.

Whether they are separated by a couple of streets or the tyranny of distance makes no difference.

Letters, email, phone calls, texts – all blocked.

I have heard of presents being returned unopened. Which leads in some cases to conversations years later between grandparents and adult grandchildren where the grandparent needs to decide which is the lesser of two evils: leave the vengeful past alone, or tell some of the truth.

The separation can last for weeks, months, years. It can even intrude its ugliness into disputes about inheritance. There are fierce contests that pit, “you cast us aside and now you come back for money” against, “you contributed to poisoning the relationship and now you want to add injury and keep what was never yours”.

This is a lawyer’s paradise, a parallel track (albeit usually later in life) to relationship breakdowns that end up in bitter fights about the division of property in which I include children.

The courts must look to the least bad outcome for the children, while the competing adults fight both for the affection of the children and revenge upon the person with whom, in most cases, they very pleasantly conceived those now tangible barter pieces.

The obstacles to rapprochement are high

Sometimes a person chooses alienation. It’s a voluntary choice that reflects their assessment of the person or people they are casting aside. The core of those beliefs, however wrong they might be, is not susceptible to a rational discussion. 

To even raise the issue with them is to provoke a strong defensive reaction.

Which is why the preferred course is to “stay right out of it”.

Here’s an example. Three siblings who, despite very different life courses, have got by with each other over the decades. Two of them have a disagreement and say or write things better not done.

The third sibling values the relationship with both of them. If she or he attempts to mend fences between them then the most likely result is that either or both of the alienated siblings will cast number three aside as being biased, insensitive, misinformed.

Why go from being able to talk freely with each of the alienated pair (with some topics being off limits) to having no contact? 

Isn’t this an instance where number three should follow theologian Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer?

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

To take another example, this time within a long-term relationship. If one of the two is slighted (whether real or imagined) by the other’s parents then it’s simple enough to put the way forward as: “Choose me or choose your parents. Both is not an option”.

This is Hobson’s choice. It’s presented as a free choice but it’s no choice at all.

If the person presented with this no choice is still invested in the relationship, then their parents are thrown overboard. That’s the rational choice.

And if the relationship continues then so does that choice. After all, why stir up a hornet’s nest by raising the issue again. 

To say to the partner, be it weeks, months or years later: “I’d like the kids to see my parents” falls squarely enough into Niebuhr’s first line,

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change”.

Sometimes It’s possible for the partners to pursue an “ask-no-questions and I’ll-tell-no-lies” approach.

This works as follows. When the slighted partner is out and the children are left in the care of the “I’m-saying-nothing” partner, then the grandparents can be contacted. This is far from what the grandparents want, but it’s a lot more than nothing.

A variation that is built upon a funding need is the realisation that if the cast-aside grandparents were to fork out for school fees or contribute to a car or a home deposit thing would be easier. A slight opening of the contact door may bring a lot of cash. This variation is not open when the slighted partner is doing well financially or has family wealth available.

If there’s a will, is there a way?

If the above situations ring true (and that’s a matter for the reader) then attempts to rebuild relationships by siblings, adult children, parents are doomed.

Does it follow that a willingness to re-establish a relationship has to come from the instigator of its past failure?

To answer that question, where else can we go than Dr AI? I asked it: “How can family feuds be resolved?”

I suggest you ask the same or a similar question.

The answer that I got assumed a rational response by everyone involved to an irrational situation. That’s just daft.

If you are a reader who has instigated an alienation within your family, reach out before it’s too late. Have the courage to change the things you can. It’s all on you.

Hugh Selby is a former barrister and CityNews legal affairs columnist.