Non Attendance fine/prosecution - separated parents

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

This stupid law does not take human factors into account at all.

By expecting the OP to physically stop the children’s father from taking them it opens her up to all sorts of potential revenge or control actions from him.

You realise that's EVERY law.


That's why you get mitigation in court submissions.

onwards&upwards

Comms69 wrote: »

You realise that's EVERY law.


That's why you get mitigation in court submissions.

But what idiot decided not to put in a clause or whatever for separated parents? In what world do you continue to be held responsible for the actions of an ex partner? Not for any other crime/liability/fine.

iammumtoone

OP I feel for you, you were in an impossible situation. Of course you had to let the child go, he is their father and they wanted to see him. Even though you didn't agree with the timing, it would have been cruel for you to deny your children contact with their father.

This situation, Father over here on business trip returning on a fixed date wants to take his children back (cheaper cost as he just pays for the them) should have been accepted as an acceptable reason, as the children interests need to be taken into account and its in their interest to see their father. However all this needed to be agreed and authorised beforehand with evidence provided, and it sounds as if he took no for an answer too easily.

Good luck I hope you can sort something I suggest you ring gingerbread I don't know if they can help but they do a lot for single parents and will have probably come across this before.

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

But what idiot decided not to put in a clause or whatever for separated parents? In what world do you continue to be held responsible for the actions of an ex partner? Not for any other crime/liability/fine.

The offence is failing to ensure a child attends school.

Should there be a provision for grandparent, uncle, cousin, boyfriend?

maman

onwards&upwards wrote: »

But what idiot decided not to put in a clause or whatever for separated parents? In what world do you continue to be held responsible for the actions of an ex partner? Not for any other crime/liability/fine.

Are you saying that OP is responsible for paying her ex's fine as well as her own?

I agree it's hard to think ahead when access arrangements are made or physically stop someone taking the children but this sounds as if the OP just let the children go because they wanted to and that telling the school she didn't agree would be enough to absolve herself of responsibility.

Obviously it wasn't enough, she should have been telling the children and their father (although as I said they may have ignored her).

I believe that in some Local Authorities headteachers have more leeway than others but I'm surprised it's got this far if she's put her case to the school, the local authority and education welfare people. Schools don't just jump to legal proceedings.

Going forward, I think she needs to get the access arrangements set for school holidays rather than just as and when.

onwards&upwards

maman wrote: »

Are you saying that OP is responsible for paying her ex's fine as well as her own?

No she’s being fined for something he did!

If a woman is a passenger when her partner drives drunk, does she get punished for not taking his car keys away?

maman

onwards&upwards wrote: »

No she’s being fined for something he did!

If a woman is a passenger when her partner drives drunk, does she get punished for not taking his car keys away?

I take your point but, using the same analogy, she and her children could get out of the car. We're only reading between the lines but it sounds as if, to use the analogy again, she let the children go along for the ride because they wanted to be with their dad even though she knew it was the wrong thing to do.

Obviously if he took them by force it would be a different matter.

onwards&upwards

maman wrote: »

I take your point but, using the same analogy, she and her children could get out of the car. We're only reading between the lines but it sounds as if, to use the analogy again, she let the children go along for the ride because they wanted to be with their dad even though she knew it was the wrong thing to do.

Obviously if he took them by force it would be a different matter.

But if she tried to stop him what if he took them out of the country and refused to bring them back? Or made future contact difficult out of spite? It’s not fair to expect her to police him.

maman

onwards&upwards wrote: »

But if she tried to stop him what if he took them out of the country and refused to bring them back? Or made future contact difficult out of spite? It’s not fair to expect her to police him.

As I said, if it was by force or other means beyond her control then I'd have thought that the school or the education authorities or the courts would be sympathetic.

OP wasn't clear but implied it was what the children wanted.

pogofish

MrsSmith4323 wrote: »

Please advise me what to do?

Maybe start by re-reading the board policy on asking about legal matters that you clearly confirmed having read and understood as part of your signup.