School fine withdrawn!

fluffnutter

Guest101 wrote: »

I think there's some misinterpretation here.

If you wish to take your child abroad, then both parents should be present, or written consent gathered from the other parent. This is enforced by Airlines / Customs / Border Control.

The assumption here is that the holiday was indeed abroad, not an assumption i was inclined to make.

Yeah, I've muddied the waters a bit by saying 'abroad'. I should perhaps have said 'I didn't know a parent could take a child away (anywhere) without the other's knowledge'. Obviously this has been influenced by stories of abductions abroad but I confess that I've never separated the two.

I didn't know parents can take their kids on hols, abroad or otherwise, without the other's knowledge. So I'm not assuming it was abroad, although I'm still wrong about the general point.

Guest101

fluffnutter wrote: »

That's not the same argument. Can you see that?

The court issue a fine to both parents because they deem both responsible. In logical opposition to this they allow one parent to take a child away without the other's knowledge. They are contradicting themselves. I didn't know about this contradiction until clearingout pointed it out.

It's the very fact that the courts allow parents to act independently then, illogically, hold them both responsible that makes this a sound argument against both being fined.

THe Local Authority issued a fixed penalty notice, - NO-ONE has been fined.

missprice

Guest101 wrote: »

Times have changed significantly. Britain is one country that does require consent from both parents. This is enforced on a wide ranging scale, as the reliance is on Airlines (other other transport providers) to spot this in the first instance.

In other words - not enforced very well

True very badly enforced, no one I know who has recently traveled has been asked whether the other parent knows or to provide proof.
But as usual there are ways around any system.
Forged letter
Get permission for 2 weeks in France/Spain and travel on from there.

fluffnutter

Guest101 wrote: »

THe Local Authority issued a fixed penalty notice, - NO-ONE has been fined.

OK, that's a valid point.

But clearingout's point was that a court, on the one hand, would treat parents separately and on the other hold them both responsible. My comments were in response to this.

fluffnutter

fivetide wrote: »

I can read it for you but I can't understand it for you. You simply wanted to make it the OP's fault. No one else did.


I was being polite, the simple fact is you were wrong. You've dragged a thread off topic and to seven pages because you (and only you) were repeatedly making the same assumptions and irrelevant points.


I called you on it and you were defensive, as you were with everyone else. And look! Here you are still being defensive.


You should just apologise and be on your way.

I'm quite happy to have been proved wrong. A couple of people have come up with arguments that make more sense than mine, so I change my opinion. That's what's great about debating stuff - you get challenged, you change what you think, you learn stuff. Don't you change your mind if challenged and shown a better argument?

I'm not in the least defensive. But what I don't need to concede, because it didn't happen, is that the OP's posts pointed out that one important fact that I was missing - that parents are treated as separate entities in their right to take children away, then treated as together if fined. Knowing this before I posted would have made a lot of difference to my reply. All I asked you to do was find where he said this.

Guest101

fluffnutter wrote: »

OK, that's a valid point.

But clearingout's point was that a court, on the one hand, would treat parents separately and on the other hold them both responsible. My comments were in response to this.

A court will take each case before it on it's merits.

Just because two people are brought before a court, does not mean that innocence or guilt are decided for the group. One may be found guilty, and the other innocent.

For example:
Both parents are responsible for the health, safety & education of their child(ren), so in the case of neglect, both parents may be charged (unlikely, as investigations are thorough, but as an example).

The court will decide guilt on the individual, even whilst they are jointly responsible. The court may make orders on one or both parties.

Mojisola

Guest101 wrote: »

THe Local Authority issued a fixed penalty notice, - NO-ONE has been fined.

And yet the Government advice is
You can be fined for taking your child on holiday during term time without the school’s permission.
https://www.gov.uk/school-attendance-absence/overview

Mojisola

Guest101 wrote: »

A court will take each case before it on it's merits.

But the judgment won't be "were both parents responsible for the child's absence" but "have the parents paid the fine" because they will be prosecuted for non-payment, not for taking the child out of school.

Guest101

Mojisola wrote: »

And yet the Government advice is
You can be fined for taking your child on holiday during term time without the school’s permission.
https://www.gov.uk/school-attendance-absence/overview

Mojisola wrote: »

But the judgment won't be "were both parents responsible for the child's absence" but "have the parents paid the fine" because they will be prosecuted for non-payment, not for taking the child out of school.

A fixed penalty notice is not a fine. ONLY a court can issue a fine, so until a court says there is one, there isnt one.

A fixed penalty notice is this:
"we belive you have broken the law, as punishment, please pay this amount and we will not prosecute" - If you pay, you are saying, yes I have broken the law, here is my payment.

They will be prosecuted for 'failing to ensure a child attended school' - there is no fine yet, which they may or may not fail to pay.

Nixxx

I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I myself agree with the majority but also think that FN made some very valid arguments.
OP I hope you don't get fined again, but it would be an interesting court case if it got that far.