School fine withdrawn!

Mojisola

Where parents are separated, it should only be the parent who has taken the children out of school who is fined.

There would usually be no reasonable way that the other parent could stop the child going on holiday, even if he/she knew about it in advance.

Marisco

fluffnutter wrote: »

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

So how do you talk to someone who doesn't want to talk, only scream and shout, and make sure the kids are in earshot? Even her friends and priest couldn't get through to her, so no, you really do not have any idea how things can be.

fluffnutter

Every argument that's thrown back at me just strengthens my belief that some parents just don't have the will to put their kids first; that they continue to moan and bleat about their ex and how things aren't their fault, they're the other parent's fault, that they can't be held responsible for how their own child behaves. None of you has made me think that perhaps I'm wrong, or not seeing things clearly, or presented a half-decent argument against me.

I started off not unsympathetic to the OP being slapped with a fine - wasn't entirely sure he had much ground to complain but certainly appreciative of how irritating it would be. But now, after hearing the usual apologist whining about how nasty and unreasonable exes always are and how they can't possibly be involved in their child's life, I've lost all sympathy.

I'm simply arguing what the law, schools and courts are arguing. Go tell them they're being 'ridiculous' or they 'don't have a clue'. It's not me you need to convince <shrug>

alwaysskint96

fluffnutter wrote: »

Every argument that's thrown back at me just strengthens my belief that some parents just don't have the will to put their kids first; that they continue to moan and bleat about their ex and how things aren't their fault, they're the other parent's fault, that they can't be held responsible for how their own child behaves. None of you has made me think that perhaps I'm wrong, or not seeing things clearly, or presented a half-decent argument against me.

I started off not unsympathetic to the OP being slapped with a fine - wasn't entirely sure he had much ground to complain but certainly appreciative of how irritating it would be. But now, after hearing the usual apologist whining about how nasty and unreasonable exes always are and how they can't possibly be involved in their child's life, I've lost all sympathy.

I'm simply arguing what the law, schools and courts are arguing. Go tell them they're being 'ridiculous' or they 'don't have a clue'. It's not me you need to convince <shrug>

But you still have not explained exactly HOW people are meant to know without being told EXACTLY what their child is doing on a day to day basis when they dont live particularly close if they are not told

fluffnutter

Marisco wrote: »

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?

It is interesting about responsibility. It's an argument with merits on both side. Leaving aside the car situation which has no relevance as that's not about your own children, can parents be fined for their children's behaviour?

I guess the argument is that it's your parental duty to know what your kids are up to. Not the minor stuff, all kids have secrets, but if kids are committing criminal acts I do personally think it's no real defence to say 'Nothing to do with me - I'm just the parent'. What does that say about your parenting?

In some situations, and that's why we have laws and courts, yes I think it's wholly appropriate that parents are fined for their children's behaviour (those children being under age of course).

Guest101

fluffnutter wrote: »

Every argument that's thrown back at me just strengthens my belief that some parents just don't have the will to put their kids first; that they continue to moan and bleat about their ex and how things aren't their fault, they're the other parent's fault, that they can't be held responsible for how their own child behaves. None of you has made me think that perhaps I'm wrong, or not seeing things clearly, or presented a half-decent argument against me.

I started off not unsympathetic to the OP being slapped with a fine - wasn't entirely sure he had much ground to complain but certainly appreciative of how irritating it would be. But now, after hearing the usual apologist whining about how nasty and unreasonable exes always are and how they can't possibly be involved in their child's life, I've lost all sympathy.

I'm simply arguing what the law, schools and courts are arguing. Go tell them they're being 'ridiculous' or they 'don't have a clue'. It's not me you need to convince <shrug>

I posted this earlier for you....

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.

DS4215

Marisco wrote: »

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?

Unless you have definitive proof that someone else was driving, then the named owner would be responsible for any parking fines or speeding tickets that are issued.

Guest101

fluffnutter wrote: »

It is interesting about responsibility. It's an argument with merits on both side. Leaving aside the car situation which has no relevance as that's not about your own children, can parents be fined for their children's behaviour?

I guess the argument is that it's your parental duty to know what your kids are up to. Not the minor stuff, all kids have secrets, but if kids are committing criminal acts I do personally think it's no real defence to say 'Nothing to do with me - I'm just the parent'. What does that say about your parenting?

In some situations, and that's why we have laws and courts, yes I think it's wholly appropriate that parents are fined for their children's behaviour (those children being under age of course).

The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10, just fyi.

Guest101

DS4215 wrote: »

Unless you can prove definitely otherwise that someone else was driving, then the named owner would be responsible for any parking fines or speeding tickets that are issued.

Actually not quite.

If the registered keeper can name the driver, it is them that is responsible. The onus would then be on the police to prove it was, and obviously for the named driver to disprove this (an alibi for example).

In cases of Private parking tickets, this is even clearer - but as a civil case, not really applicable (no penalty attached)

The driver is always responsible, but the registered keeper is the 'back-up'

fluffnutter

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

But you still have not explained exactly HOW people are meant to know without being told EXACTLY what their child is doing on a day to day basis when they dont live particularly close if they are not told

You ask what's going on in your child's life. You keep asking. You make sure you're directly and regularly involved. Of course things are difficult but why aren't you living that close? Did you make the decision to move away from your child? Why? Could you not have stayed closer? Perhaps you left for work? Was that the only job you could have possibly taken? Perhaps you left because of a new relationship? Well, you've prioritised that over your child so perhaps you've got no right to then complain it's not easy to know what's going on in your child's life.

You have choices. When you have children, every decision you make should consider them. It's not easy, I'm not saying that. But people are quick to say 'I can't, I'm not around' when if you examine why they're not around it becomes pretty clear that's because they've chosen to be not around. You can't have it both ways. If you're not as involved as you'd like to be, then you need to look at the effort you've made.

No doubt this will be countered with 'but she took my kids away!'. So why didn't you go to court and argue that this wasn't in the child's interests? Did you just stand by and watch her move to the other end of the country or did you fight for better access?

If you don't know what's going on in your child's life, you need to look at your own behaviour first before deciding you're hard done by.