School fine withdrawn!

stir_crazy

fluffnutter wrote: »

No, I don't think that. I'm not naive. I'm just saying it's no excuse. Every parent who's not getting on with their ex thinks they're the reasonable one in the right. For every man saying 'my ex is an unreasonable witch' you have a woman, maybe even the ex herself, saying 'my ex is an unreasonable git'. It's just about points of view, isn't it. She did this. But he did this.

My point is, just man up. The pair of you. If your ex is hard work, stop slagging them off, stop running them down in front of your kids, just up the ante. Just because someone behaves badly doesn't give you the right to do so in response. Put your egos aside and behave better. I'm not interested in the detail, it's always depressingly the same - he/she's unreasonable/uses the kids/emotional blackmail blah blah. Plenty of parents don't behave like that. Plenty just grit their teeth and get on with it so that their kids aren't caught in the middle. So why are some managing and some not? Because they're just trying harder I bet.a

Because some people just are not reasonable to begin with. DH has a nutty ex. I wont go too much into detail, but he got thrown out and denied access to his child (by her). Fast forward 10 years and although he has court approved access to see the child, she still does not allow it - she has tried every trick in the book to make sure the child dont see their dad. How do you reason with someone like that? Just go to see the child regardless? Phone up the school to see how they are doing? DH also tried that and the ex got him charged for harrassment. Some people are truly evil once they have a child to hold over you.

fluffnutter

Guest101 wrote: »

FN is being ridiculous. Obviously the 'absent' parent cannot know whether the child is being taken out of school or not.

The offence is failing to ensure a child attends school. The absent parent is not capable of ensuring this, and should argue that he does not have legal custody of the child to do so.

I know lots of parents without custody of their children. They really hate being called the 'absent' parent. They argue, rightly so, that they are as present, loving and involved as they can be given that it's difficult to parent across two households. If you spend any time on forums that support separated fathers you'll see that 'absent' is not a popular description of their role.

So if you are truly 'absent', then more fool you. If you don't know what's going on in your child's life you only have yourself to blame.

missprice

fluffnutter wrote: »

So if you are truly 'absent', then more fool you. If you don't know what's going on in your child's life you only have yourself to blame.

And of course be charged for not knowing?

Guest101

fluffnutter wrote: »

I know lots of parents without custody of their children. They really hate being called the 'absent' parent. They argue, rightly so, that they are as present, loving and involved as they can be given that it's difficult to parent across two households. If you spend any time on forums that support separated fathers you'll see that 'absent' is not a popular description of their role.

So if you are truly 'absent', then more fool you. If you don't know what's going on in your child's life you only have yourself to blame.

Hence why absent was in ' quotation marks '....

Regardless of your (questionable) moral stance on reality. this is a legal question, and I think a reasonable argument is that a court has decreed that legal custody of the child is with the mother for the days in question. The father could not collect the child as he would be in breach of a court order.

- that assumes a court order is in effect, but a child arrangement considered outside of court may prove the intent, should it ever have gone to court.

Marisco

fluffnutter wrote: »

No, I don't think that. I'm not naive. I'm just saying it's no excuse. Every parent who's not getting on with their ex thinks they're the reasonable one in the right. For every man saying 'my ex is an unreasonable witch' you have a woman, maybe even the ex herself, saying 'my ex is an unreasonable git'. It's just about points of view, isn't it. She did this. But he did this.

My point is, just man up. The pair of you. If your ex is hard work, stop slagging them off, stop running them down in front of your kids, just up the ante. Just because someone behaves badly doesn't give you the right to do so in response. Put your egos aside and behave better. I'm not interested in the detail, it's always depressingly the same - he/she's unreasonable/uses the kids/emotional blackmail blah blah. Plenty of parents don't behave like that. Plenty just grit their teeth and get on with it so that their kids aren't caught in the middle. So why are some managing and some not? Because they're just trying harder I bet.a

You really have no idea

fluffnutter

Here's another similar scenario. You have to go away on business for a fortnight. You decide to take your OH leaving your child in the loving and safe care of your parents.

Said parents have a funny five minutes and decide to take your kid to Magaluf for a week whilst you're out of the country. You're duly fined as a result.

Do you think you can really argue in court that this isn't your responsibility? That because you weren't around, you're somehow abdicated of ensuring that your child goes to school? The courts would rightly argue that your duty of care continues and that includes making it known to the grandparents that whipping your kid out of school for a week the minute your back is turned is not acceptable. Obviously you're going to have a few words to say to the grandparents, but that's not the point. The point is that you are still responsible.

It's exactly the same for separated parents. Why parents think that their obligations stop simply because their child is not with them at the time is beyond me.

stir_crazy

fluffnutter wrote: »

Here's another similar scenario. You have to go away on business for a fortnight. You decide to take your OH leaving your child in the loving and safe care of your parents.

Said parents have a funny five minutes and decide to take your kid to Magaluf for a week whilst you're out of the country. You're duly fined as a result.

Do you think you can really argue in court that this isn't your responsibility? That because you weren't around, you're somehow abdicated of ensuring that your child goes to school? The courts would rightly argue that your duty of care continues and that includes making it known to the grandparents that whipping your kid out of school for a week the minute your back is turned is not acceptable. Obviously you're going to have a few words to say to the grandparents, but that's not the point. The point is that you are still responsible.

It's exactly the same for separated parents. Why parents think that their obligations stop simply because their child is not with them at the time is beyond me.

That is not a similar scenario.

fluffnutter

Marisco wrote: »

You really have no idea

Of course I do. I just see things differently to you.

fluffnutter

stir_crazy wrote: »

That is not a similar scenario.

Why not? Your child is in the care of someone else. They do something which incurs a penalty. As parent you're held ultimately responsible. It doesn't matter who that someone else is - you are always responsible for your child. Explain what's different about it.

Marisco

fluffnutter wrote: »

Here's another similar scenario. You have to go away on business for a fortnight. You decide to take your OH leaving your child in the loving and safe care of your parents.

Said parents have a funny five minutes and decide to take your kid to Magaluf for a week whilst you're out of the country. You're duly fined as a result.

Do you think you can really argue in court that this isn't your responsibility? That because you weren't around, you're somehow abdicated of ensuring that your child goes to school? The courts would rightly argue that your duty of care continues and that includes making it known to the grandparents that whipping your kid out of school for a week the minute your back is turned is not acceptable. Obviously you're going to have a few words to say to the grandparents, but that's not the point. The point is that you are still responsible.

It's exactly the same for separated parents. Why parents think that their obligations stop simply because their child is not with them at the time is beyond me.

In that case then the grandparents should be liable for the fine. You really think someone should be fined for something they have no idea about? Where will it end? Should parents be fined for kids getting drunk and disorderly if they are out with their mates? Or if you lend someone your car as a favour, and they clock up parking fines, should you be liable?