School fine withdrawn!

Jagraf

Guest101 wrote: »

No I appreciate what you're saying. Just pointing out that the leal rights are equal. ( unless a court order specifies otherwise)

This has not been the general rule. Individual cases may be that one parent needed permission.

I got mixed up with a residency order. I feel,like ordering a copy of all my divorce papers as I am absolutely convinced there was something written down which made me think I could take DD out do the country as PWC but ex couldn't (not that it ever stood in our way, except once when DD phoned me from a different continent to one I thought she was in :eek:).

But, a residency order involves an acrimonious divorce doesn't it, ie having to go to court? Or could we have just included it in the divorce papers.

Genuine question, sorry to hijack the thread.

Guest101

Jagraf wrote: »

I got mixed up with a residency order. I feel,like ordering a copy of all my divorce papers as I am absolutely convinced there was something written down which made me think I could take DD out do the country as PWC but ex couldn't (not that it ever stood in our way, except once when DD phoned me from a different continent to one I thought she was in :eek:).

But, a residency order involves an acrimonious divorce doesn't it, ie having to go to court? Or could we have just included it in the divorce papers.

Genuine question, sorry to hijack the thread.

The general rule is - Both parents must consent to the child travelling abroad. This is not very well enforced, as they Home Office (As in the Border authority - formerly UK Borders Agency) rely on the airlines (or respective travel providers) to check to make sure this is the case. This is then put on to the individual check-in clerk. There are safeguards in place, but thousands of people use airports up and down the country every day. Not everyone is checked.
- suspicions are higher when children travel outside of school holidays.

Residency Orders have changed to Child Contact Orders, and probably changed again since then. Each order is unique. In your individual circumstances you may well have been allowed to travel unhindered, whereas as your former spouse was to seek your permission. This may be because his 'homeland' was in a non-extradition country, or outside the EU (EEC or so forth). This may even have been noted as the PWC may travel, but the NRP may not - but that status was used as an identifier, not as an authority.

Shortversion. Instead of saying 'Jagraf may travel', they simply said 'the PWC may travel' - unhindered.

Such orders are not part of a divorce settlement. A divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage. The settlement of financial and legal ties. Children (residency orders, Child contact orders or whatever theyre known as now) are not part of the 'marriage', there is a seperate and continuing moral and legal relationship between both parents and children. So whilst it would not be part of the 'Divorce', a court could obviously hear multiple aspects of the family 'dispute'.

The 'what it should be' in an ideal world, is 50/50 Custody, with both parents having equal rights and responsibilities and so forth. And that is usually the starting point, from there the court can make a decision based on circumstances.

Jagraf

I suppose kidnap also happens when couples are still together, married or not, so its almost impossible to police anyway.

What I find really weird is how a child apears to be questioned more if travelling with someone with a different surname as this can happen in every situation.

I don't know the answer, we seem to have come through it relatively unscathed but I will still get my file, well, dust it off lol.

Guest101

Jagraf wrote: »

I suppose kidnap also happens when couples are still together, married or not, so its almost impossible to police anyway.

What I find really weird is how a child apears to be questioned more if travelling with someone with a different surname as this can happen in every situation.

I don't know the answer, we seem to have come through it relatively unscathed but I will still get my file, well, dust it off lol.

Just to clarify a child should not be questioned at all in an official capacity, without an adult present. But again as this is being monitored by commercial travel companies, this is often too overlooked.

Unfortunately what we have is people who have completed a 4 hour course doing a job they simply aren't qualified to do. Even when the intentions are 'good'.

carmina_piranha

peachyprice wrote: »

Ok, so when you heard about it did you contact the school and tell them you didn't agree with the holiday and that she was removing them from school without your permission.

You couldn't have prevented her, but you could have covered your own back by making your stance known to the school.

You may both have PR, but that doesn't mean that you should be fined for something you have no control over.

Out of interest, what difference does it make if a parent tells the school they object to the child's taking a term time holiday? Can the school tell the council to only issue a penalty notice to the other parent?

Guest101

carmina_piranha wrote: »

Out of interest, what difference does it make if a parent tells the school they object to the child's taking a term time holiday? Can the school tell the council to only issue a penalty notice to the other parent?

It would be evidence the non-consenting parent could use to show that they cannot have committed the offence as they actively objected to the commission of the offence in the first place.

carmina_piranha

Gaz126 wrote: »

So far the councils lame response has been, 1/2hour free legal advice?
Mediation! I tried for mediation prior to going to court that took 2 years to get a contact order and PR. I would never willingly go there again, but was a necessity in order for contact. So after 7 years, communication limited, but children happier. Do you really expect me to create more animosity which affects the children? I now except the position and believe it is for the best. I do not need laws that have taken away a lot of my rights, to now impose fines for something I have not done!

This is the bit that worries me about both parents being held responsible. I've seen plenty of warring parents thrive on the arguments and drama, regardless of how it affects the children.

Also if a parent had said they couldn't afford a holiday this year then managed to get a cheap caravan holiday from a newspaper promotion that was in term time, the other parent wouldn't be popular with the children if they were able to say no to that holiday.

Maybe you knew about this holiday and didn't object - not because you don't care about their education but because you don't want to cause animosity, for the sake of the children.

Guest101

carmina_piranha wrote: »

This is the bit that worries me about both parents being held responsible. I've seen plenty of warring parents thrive on the arguments and drama, regardless of how it affects the children.

Also if a parent had said they couldn't afford a holiday this year then managed to get a cheap caravan holiday from a newspaper promotion that was in term time, the other parent wouldn't be popular with the children if they were able to say no to that holiday.

Maybe you knew about this holiday and didn't object - not because you don't care about their education but because you don't want to cause animosity, for the sake of the children.

I'm sorry you've lost me here.

It makes no difference if he objects or not. The other parent wouldnt even know if they had.

The school rejected the request at any rate.

carmina_piranha

Guest101 wrote: »

It would be evidence the non-consenting parent could use to show that they cannot have committed the offence as they actively objected to the commission of the offence in the first place.

Ah, okay, so later on if it gets to court. Fair enough. But what about those parents who don't get enough notice?

I still think it's unfair to blame a separated parent.

carmina_piranha

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm sorry you've lost me here.

It makes no difference if he objects or not. The other parent wouldnt even know if they had.

The school rejected the request at any rate.

Sorry that's what I mean - that it should make no difference if he objects or not, the other parent should be able to go ahead. It would be different if it was a child with poor attendance for whatever reason - intervention would be needed there and the other parent should be involved - but a week's holiday for a child with otherwise good attendance shouldn't be enough to cause an issue between the two parents.

From the way I read some of the posts in this thread it sounded like some think that other parent should have the power to prevent the holiday in the first place, and I don't think that's good for the children, another reason for disharmony.