Scottish Gran Elsie Melville just wants to see her four grandchildren. Daughter Donna Melville said that Gran is “domineering and interfering” (she called the SSPCA on her own daughter!) and gives the kids too much candy. (As reported in The Herald: “Mrs Melville was accused of taking two carrier bags of sweets to the children. The two oldest children had suffered dental problems and had had teeth removed.”) So Donna cut her mom off. Gran filed a civil action, in which she is legally referred to as “the pursuer.”
What did the Perth Sheriff Court decide?
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.
The children would benefit from contact with the pursuer, especially emotionally. However, such contact should not involve an over-indulgence in the provision of confectionery, nor disparaging or interfering remarks by the pursuer.
What does the pursuer think about the decision?
I don’t know why she was going on so much about sweets – that’s what grans are for.
I want the kids to see that I love them. I’m going to make them sandwiches and yoghurt when they come round.