Are there any reasons why a family wouldn't be allowed to hE?

[sorky]

Just wondering?
I don't know of anyone being refused.

[AMumInScotland]

In England, it isn't really a question of being allowed or refused, you can simply start doing it - I'm not sure if there are any cases where a family has been given a school attendance order by a court, which would be the closest to "being refused" taht I can think of. I think there are almost certainly families who have given up because the LEA gave them a hard time, before it getting to a court case.

Up here in Scotland, families do have to ask permission before they can deregister from a state school, and there are conditions where the council would be likely to refuse - like if the child is already on the "at risk" register, or if the family can't/won't say how they plan to provide a suitable education.

Does that help?

[MrsWobbleTheWaitress]

They can't stop you as the law stands. If you are considered capable of looking after children, then I think you're supposed to be considered capable of educating them. If you're neglecting their education so much that they're showing up as neglected, then it would be a case for social services anyway!

[sorky]

I don't know of anyone being given a SAO, but I did hear from an EWO that the LA had issued a SAO to a family of a truanting girl who had deregistered to avoid prosecution.

I can't imagine that a child on the at-risk register would be able to HE. That can't be right surely?

[AMumInScotland]

I don't know about the position in England about the at-risk register - maybe it would just mean that SS would increase their watching considerably, since there would be fewer other eyes on the family?

Up here, the council aren't allowed to take truanting into account - a bad attendance record on its own is not a reason for them refusing consent to HE - they realise that some children who are having a bad time in school will have poor attendance, so unless there are other reasons for concern that's not meant to stop a family from HEing.

[sorky]

Hmm, that's interesting AMInS

Actually, thinking about it Kyra Ishak case were a family known to SS and they were able to HE weren't they. Maybe it doesn't make any difference.

It should do...

[Marjoriew]

She wasn't home educated and she wasn't ever deregistered officially from school.

[sorky]

Ah yes, I stand corrected. Thank you Marjoriew

[AMumInScotland]

I would certainly hope that SS would be extra-vigilant, specially if a child who was already known to be at-risk was deregistered from school (or just not attending like the above case), since it could be a sign of deeper problems. Totally different if there had never been any reason for concern, of course!

Is there someone particular you're worried about?

[sorky]

well, sort of
a family has section 47 proceedings going on (i won't go into details) they weren't known to the LA (are now obv)

I wondered whether they would still be able to HE is all

[ommmward]

As the law stands, education and welfare are supposed to be kept separate. Ed Balls and the DCSF's constant conflation of the two was one of the areas in which the heinous CSF bill was challenged.

If a family has sufficient connections with the social services that section 47 proceedings are in progress then, frankly, where they are being educated is (or should be) the last issue on anyone's minds. There should be social workers keeping a very very close eye. I'd say being HEed almost makes them safer - because the social workers can't assume that someone at school will keep a proper eye on them.

If the family loses the children into care then the HE question will become moot - the care system, acting in loco parentis, will then put the children into school, almost certainly (unless there are HEing foster families around, I guess).

[sorky]

Ommm, if one of the children is removed, to extended family, could that family member HE or does legal guardianship come with restrictions?

Agree btw, it likely isn't what they are thinking about it at all, it's just me musing.
I do know they have had to provide a parental & an educational philosophy, though whether this is to justify their HE choices is anyones guess I suppose.

[ommmward]

My assumption would be that whoever is acting in loco parentis gets to choose about the educational provision. So if they are a ward of court (I think that's what it's called) then presumably social services are in charge. But if they are being fostered by someone, I don't know who is in loco parentis, whether it's the foster parents or the state.

I'd ask in the fostering/adoption topic - someone there is bound to know who is in loco parentis!

[musicposy]

As far as I know, foster parents have to send a child to school. Even adoptive parents have to do this for a certain amount of time if the child who comes to them is of school age. I know this because it has put some HE parents I know off of fostering and given them concerns about adopting a school aged child as it would completely disrupt their HE lives.

[lilyfire]

If the local authority have a care order, or interim care order, then they have parental responsibility which 'trumps' the parents parental responsibility and so the local authority can choose where the child should be educated (although they should consult the parents, but don't have to follow their wishes). They have to put it in the care plan, which goes before the court, when the court considers whether to grant the care order/interim care order. If the children are with a foster carer, the decision isn't the foster carers. If the children are placed with a family member/friend under a care order, interim care order the decision is still the LA's. If LA was anti-HE then I think they'd want to know that the family member would support school, if that was the care plan for the child.
If there are proceedings, but no order yet, the decision is still the parents', but there are cases where the parent is effectively pressurised to send a child to school, to avoid a care order being made (where there are welfare concerns of sufficient severity that the court would be likely to grant a care order).
Where there are welfare concerns which are serious enough to justify care orders, the LA want the children back in school because they think schools act as a watchdog. This is the case even if the home ed provision itself has not been of concern.