Parental Responsibility

speedster

Vomityspice wrote: »

The advice was not about 'reminding' organisation as frankly 'it is not their problem'. I doubt any school would even question a child's change of surname. My advice was to ensure that the ex does not engage in any attempts to change the childrens name.

Not sure why you think this is 'tosh' as I have made such an application and have been successful?? but your entitled to your views.

no offence, but your advice sucked.

PR is set in concrete as are the laws around it. so to advise a £180 court application which would be laughed out is ridiculous.

this is what i mean by the advice on here sometimes.

Vomityspice

speedster wrote: »

no offence, but your advice sucked.

PR is set in concrete as are the laws around it. so to advise a £180 court application which would be laughed out is ridiculous.

this is what i mean by the advice on here sometimes.

Perhaps you really should learn to read. My exact words were;

'Whilst the ex has almost zero chance of getting PR removed....'

Clearly indicating that removal of PR was unlikely! I am not sure why you think I said anything other???

However, my post (and your response) about a Prohibitive Steps Order (Your PSO) was what I believe is the answer to the OP's question. i.e. how to stop the ex from changing the names of the children without his consent. In this case the solution is a Prohibitive Steps Order as it will stop the ex from attempting to change the names by surreptitious means. By all means they could inform all the likely people that may come into contact with the children (Dr's , schools, dentists etc) but that wouldn't stop the ex from simply calling the children by the 'new' names. A PSO would.

Still not sure why you think the advise 'sucked', but happy to disagree with your analysis. I suspect you may be mistaken?

shell_542

You don't need an SRO though really as the father is involved in his children's lives and attends their school for events, so he would know if she attempted to use a known as name and can get it corrected. Some times schools and medical practitioners can be funny about correcting their documents but they will do it if you push and show them evidence of the relevant laws/guidelines.

speedster

!!!!!!. you clearly don't know, so why are you still trying to justify it.

a PSO would be laughed out. END OF.

your "advice" would only see the OP £180 lighter.

all the OP has to do is write a few letters to school and doctors.

romanempire

Vomityspice wrote: »

a Prohibitive Steps Order

Don't want to nit-pick (but I will ). Its actually called a Prohibited Steps Order.

R.

speedster

romanempire wrote: »

Don't want to nit-pick (but I will ). Its actually called a Prohibited Steps Order.

R.

that's trivial.... it's the rest of the "advice" that's the problem.

my last words on the matter.

see below for signature................

Vomityspice

speedster wrote: »

that's trivial.... it's the rest of the "advice" that's the problem.

my last words on the matter.

see below for signature................

Oh come on, if poke you enough with a stick your bound to respond!!

Might be helpful for you to enlighten us as to why (i.e on what basis) you believe the advice I gave is problematic? It is easy to say 'i disagree', but it might be more helpful to the OP back this up with something more than your belief system. For all we know, you believe the moon is made of cheese......

For the record, all my posts have indicated the proposed course of action and the reasoning behind it (i.e the logical process) unlike your pithy 'i disagree' postings. I am always happy to be educated by someone with greater experience in this area, so I am happy to be informed by your apparent obvious expertise in this area. Perhaps you could share where your source of wisdom has emanated from so we can all decide on how informed your advice is???

speedster

ok.

firsltly, for a PSO to be granted you need concrete proof of an order or law being broken. otherwise IT WILL FAIL, wasting £180.

and calling the child by another name in the street isn't breaking any rules.

as for schools, doctors etc, all you have to do is remind/ inform them of the laws surounding PR and they are lagally bound to comply. if they don't, all you have to do is go over their head to their superiors.

it's quite plain to see that your knowledge is very limited in this area, so my ADVICE is to leave it to people who don't give worthless advice based on either hearsay or what you "think" is correct. you obviously have little or no experience in court protocol, so why bother "advising"??

as i said, all your advice would suceed in achieving is to see the OP £180 lighter when all they had to do was write a few letters and post them. (60p ish)

far cheaper and very money saving advice. :beer:

kwaks

speedster wrote: »

ok.

firsltly, for a PSO to be granted you need concrete proof of an order or law being broken. otherwise IT WILL FAIL, wasting £180.

Surely one of the most common PSOs is to stop children being taken out the country? Which is pre-emptive and not there to stop an order or law being broken?

speedster

kwaks wrote: »

Surely one of the most common PSOs is to stop children being taken out the country? Which is pre-emptive and not there to stop an order or law being broken?

exactly. it is ILLEGAL to remove the child for more than 28 days without consent. to get a PSO you would have to have concrete proof of intention. or the other side may have filed a LTR.

another point well worth mentioning is that PSO apps often fail. they are nototriously hard to get, so going to court on a whim where no laws either have or will be flouted is absolutely futile.

save the £180 and skin the cat another way.