School fine withdrawn!

Marisco

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>

You haven't presented a half decent argument either. As Alwaysskint points out, as have others, how is a NRP supposed to know what happens on a daily basis in a PWC's household if no one tells them, especially if they live a canny way away? And as for ex wives, all you're doing is more or less calling people liars when they explain their own personal experiences.

If people have had a good experience, then there is no problem, my ex and myself are better friends now than we ever were when we were married, and any problems with the "kids" (although mine are now probably older than you!!) I would have no hesitation in phoning him about it. But whatever you say, for some this is just not possible.

Lunar_Eclipse

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

I don't think anyone would dispute this, it's a fact that applies to all aspects of life (being self-centred) and parents whether together or not.

However, it's insensitive at best on a thread like this isn't it? I agree with the logical aspects that you have written, yet feel it's in poor taste, not applicable in these circumstances and also, know the other side is true (you can't reason with some people so suggesting they don't put their child first caus they don't try hard enough is untrue and very hurtful.)

Divorce is my worst nightmare, because I have witnessed how people turn into the devil when rejected through marital breakdown and how this can affect children. I have a 'friend' going through it as I type, and they are at risk of the children being removed by social services due to unbelievably stubborn behaviour on both sides. They both want the other party to have nothing (no child access, no house) so the lawyers are doing incredibly well and court dates keep being pushed back. I had no idea such a hell existed on Earth; I honestly would not be able to get out of bed every day facing what she faces.

OP: I agree that you are not responsible for the fine, so you could consider allowing it to go to court, as wasteful as that is for everyone involved. Alternatively, if you can afford to, you pay the fine and move on.

Lunar_Eclipse

FN: you don't get it. Communication requires more than one person. You can ask all you like, but what you know comes down to what you are told!

Think about other relationships. Imagine you know someone and you want to develop a close relationship. You won't get anywhere if the other party doesn't want this too. No amount of showing interest, asking questions, trying to be actively involved will achieve the desired outcome if the other party doesn't allow it. You can't communicate with a silent person, and this is how it can be between estranged parents. A very sad reality and great that you know many single parents where that isn't the case.

fluffnutter

Guest101 wrote: »

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

Absolutely. The case that came to mind when I was writing my reply was the terrible James Bulger murder. In that situation of course you can't hold the parents responsible in any legal way - they can't be sentenced for murder. That's why I said 'some situations'. It depends, life isn't black and white.

But the general point remains - sometimes parents ARE responsible for their child's behaviour, morally at least. The parents of James Bulger's killers can't be held legally responsible - they didn't commit murder, but they still would have been culpable in many people's minds. Questions would have been raised about their parenting. Sometimes it's right and appropriate to view poor behaviour in the child as a result of poor parenting.

Not every heinous act committed by a child is the fault of the child's parents, but we are talking about school attendance here and I think it's quite lame to argue that as a parent you have no control over getting Johnny or Jasmine to school. Beat them harder if they refuse!

stir_crazy

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

Yes, they are in the care of someone else - by mutual agreement. Therefore the grandparents - since they are in mutual agreement with the parents and obviously on good terms with the parents - will more than likely notify the parents that they will be taking the child on holiday during term time. The parents then have the option to agree or disagree with the grandparents.

In this real life thread, the OP obviously is not on good terms with the ex and she has not notified him that the child has been out of school and therefore has not given him the option of agreeing or disagreeing. This is why the two scenarios are not similar.

Marisco

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I don't think anyone would dispute this, it's a fact that applies to all aspects of life (being self-centred) and parents whether together or not.

However, it's insensitive at best on a thread like this isn't it? I agree with the logical aspects that you have written, yet feel it's in poor taste, not applicable in these circumstances and also, know the other side is true (you can't reason with some people so suggesting they don't put their child first caus they don't try hard enough is untrue and very hurtful.)

Divorce is my worst nightmare, because I have witnessed how people turn into the devil when rejected through marital breakdown and how this can affect children. I have a 'friend' going through it as I type, and they are at risk of the children being removed by social services due to unbelievably stubborn behaviour on both sides. They both want the other party to have nothing (no child access, no house) so the lawyers are doing incredibly well and court dates keep being pushed back. I had no idea such a hell existed on Earth; I honestly would not be able to get out of bed every day facing what she faces.

OP: I agree that you are not responsible for the fine, so you could consider allowing it to go to court, as wasteful as that is for everyone involved. Alternatively, if you can afford to, you pay the fine and move on.

Neither did I LE, neither did I. Until I came across oh's ex. And TBH if someone had told me prior to this, that there were people like this around, I don't think I would have believed that anyone could act this way either!! Looking back (this is 20 odd years ago now) it's still seems unbelievable.

pmlindyloo

This link may be useful as it outlines what a non resident parent (with parental responsibility) should be doing as regards the welfare and education of the child.

http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Children/Contact-and-Access/Does-my-childs-school-have-to-provide-me-with-information-on-their-attendance-and-progress.html

I offer it only as a way of the OP using the information to make a defence as to how he has not been allowed to assert his parental responsibilities in court, if indeed, this is the case.

fluffnutter

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

FN: you don't get it. Communication requires more than one person. You can ask all you like, but what you know comes down to what you are told!

Think about other relationships. Imagine you know someone and you want to develop a close relationship. You won't get anywhere if the other party doesn't want this too. No amount of showing interest, asking questions, trying to be actively involved will achieve the desired outcome if the other party doesn't allow it. You can't communicate with a silent person, and this is how it can be between estranged parents. A very sad reality and great that you know many single parents where that isn't the case.

When you ask the silent person why they don't communicate, they tend to say 'it's not me! They won't communicate with me!'. It's amazing how the same argument is used by both parents. Why is that?

fivetide

fluffnutter wrote: »

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

You seem to see things differently to a lot of people.


You have made a lot of assumptions, you seem to think it is all easily resolvable and everyone who has a nightmare ex is to blame for them being a nightmare. Must be nice to live in your world.


As others have said, I hope you are never in this situation. Until then, you have made your point but you seem to lack the life experience to talk from a position of true knowledge FN.

fluffnutter

stir_crazy wrote: »

Yes, they are in the care of someone else - by mutual agreement. Therefore the grandparents - since they are in mutual agreement with the parents and obviously on good terms with the parents - will more than likely notify the parents that they will be taking the child on holiday during term time. The parents then have the option to agree or disagree with the grandparents.

In this real life thread, the OP obviously is not on good terms with the ex and she has not notified him that the child has been out of school and therefore has not given him the option of agreeing or disagreeing. This is why the two scenarios are not similar.

Ha ha! You've had to change my scenario to show it's not the same as the OP's .

I specifically said that the grandparents have acted without the parents' knowledge. You can't ignore that salient point simply because it doesn't fit with your argument!

So tell me again, what's so different? Person looking after child does something parent is not aware of. Is it right to abdicate parent of all responsibility?