can a school refuse to release a child to parent

[oldstudentmum]

My child dc2 had appointment at dr after school hours, however I would need to take my other young child dc1 with us. dc2 finishes 10 mins earlier than dc1. the surgery were so nice managing to give me the appointment however the time was a mere 10 mins after dc2 official end time. so I left a message with school that I would be pickin up dc2 10 mins early in order to attend appointment.
Well I turned up at school to be told that they would not release my young child to me as it wasn't dc2 appointment WTF.
what is the legal stand on this a school refusing to release a child to a parent.

[GraciesMansion]

No they can’t refuse and if that had happened to me I would have laughed at them and then asked them to go and get my child now.

[lamettarules]

I think if you appear under the influence they can refuse but this - honestly how incredibly rude and unhelpful .

[oldstudentmum]

I thought they were overstepping the mark. I was very very angry,
I read online if school refuse you can phone police - unsure if it related to the uk .
There has been a letter this week over attendance issues in NURSERY and RECEPTION (who are on the whole under legal school age) if issues with attendance of children continue parents will be asked to come in to a meeting!! we all know little kids will on average pick up something every month lol their immunities are not developed. Parents were NOT happy.

[Lostflipflop]

What did you do when they didn't release your own child?

I would have gone mental!

[AlexanderHamilton]

No they can't refuse unless they have reason to believe the child is in danger (e.g. yiu are drunk, high, or in a temper & likely to hurt them)

[Ginxed]

How odd, registration would have been done anyway so it wouldn't be classed non-attendance. It's common sense that a parent so close to the end of school would take both dcs, otherwise school would be stuck with dc2 till you returned.
As larnetta says, school can refuse if they believe the parent is a danger to the child eg. Drunk/drugged, but it is not a decision taken lightly.
Did you have to leave without dc2?

[viques]

"Little kids will on average pick up something every month"

not in my experience. Most kids without underlying major health issues are perfectly fine and very rarely need time off school for illness. In the UK most children are exposed to other children's bugs at playgroup, pre school, nursery etc and have good immune systems. If the school is experiencing a lot of children being off school for 'minor' illnesses then it sounds as though there could be a general culture of " aw let's have a day off today kids" which they are right to address and nip in the bud.Its amazing how many children feel a tad under the weather on a Friday, especially before a bank holiday Monday!

Once children are enrolled in reception incidentally, the 'below legal school age' thing does not apply, they are subject to the same expectations re attendance as children over 5.

I am not saying I agree with the school being snippy about releasing your child early, but I can understand a school clamping down on absence generally.

[Migraleve]

So what happened?

[prh47bridge]

The OP has asked for legal advice. A lot of the advice on this thread is incorrect legally. Several people have made confident assertions that are incorrect.

A school is perfectly within its rights to refuse to release a child to a parent during school hours. Once school hours are over it is another matter. At that point they must release the child to anyone who has PR unless there is a court order stating otherwise. But the school in this case was not overstepping the mark in refusing to let the OP take her child out of school 10 minutes early. They could, perhaps, have been more accommodating but if they allowed the OP to take her child out in this situation it would have been difficult to refuse other parents, which could lead to the last half hour of the day being disrupted regularly.

[BatteredBreadedOrSouthernFried]

A school is perfectly within its rights to refuse to release a child to a parent during school hours.

Can you show the legislation that confirms this please?

[oldstudentmum]

This is the laughable bit dc walked out to the main door as she knew we had dr appointment. We got to appointment on time.
I have always made sure the kids go to appointments after school or in holiday time tbh I won't be doing that in future it's so much easier doing hospital appointments with one and not having the other with us.
The way I was told - because it's not their appointment but the sibling next time I'll just lie sod it.
Soon my eldest will have lots done (bloody blocked ears with complications narrow ear canal) looks like that will happen at hospital rather than surgery.

[prh47bridge]

Can you show the legislation that confirms this please

There is a whole pile of legislation that confirms it. The School Standards and Framework Act section 61 gives the head teacher wide powers to make and enforce rules. The Education Act 1996 requires pupils of school age to be in full-time education, not full-time less a bit when the parents feel they need to take the children out of school because it is inconvenient. And so on.

Once the school day is over the school would be in trouble if it failed to release a child to someone with PR. During school hours it is the school's decision whether or not to release the child.

[BatteredBreadedOrSouthernFried]

The Education Act 1996 requires pupils of school age to be in full-time education

No it doesn’t. Children legally have to be educated. That doesn’t have to be in school. It is the parents responsibility to make sure the child gets the education, not the schools. If it was then schools would have the authority to enter people’s homes and take their DC to school against the parents’ wishes. You are taking rubbish. No-one can withhold a child from someone with PR without a court order unless the child would be in danger from being handed over.

[youarenotkiddingme]

Schools can't refuse to hand over a child - school hours or not.

The education act says all children have a right to education and should be receiving an education form age 5.

If schools could refuse they'd all do it where a child would miss a registration - it would solve many attendance issues!

[KosmoKramer]

Seeing as prh47bridge is in the legal profession and has contributed LOADS of support to the education board, I'm inclined to agree with them 😃

[BatteredBreadedOrSouthernFried]

I imagine there is a line or two in whatever legislation PRH mentioned that talks about having good reason, such as the child being at immediate risk from harm, to refuse to hand over a child to their parent. 10 minutes before the end of the day would not stand up in court.

[prh47bridge]

No it doesn’t. Children legally have to be educated

Read my wording. The child must receive a full-time education. I didn't say anything about having to be in school. But taking a child out of school before the end of the school day breaches that.

You are taking rubbish. No-one can withhold a child from someone with PR without a court order unless the child would be in danger from being handed over

No, you are talking rubbish. There are situations where it is possible to refuse to hand over a child to someone with PR, not just where the child would be in danger. There is nothing in the legislation that gives someone with PR the right to remove a child from school in the middle of a teaching period.

If schools could refuse they'd all do it where a child would miss a registration - it would solve many attendance issues

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. When is it that a parent is going to take a child out of school that would make them miss a registration and the school can refuse to hand the child over?

I imagine there is a line or two in whatever legislation PRH mentioned that talks about having good reason, such as the child being at immediate risk from harm, to refuse to hand over a child to their parent. 10 minutes before the end of the day would not stand up in court.

Youi can imagine all you like. There is no such line in the legislation. If a parent insisted on taking a school to court they would lose. It is their case that would not stand up in court, not the school's. The school is not some kind of child care facility. It is for education. Once the child reaches compulsory school age (the child doesn't actually have to be in school but that is nonetheless the correct legal term) the parents lose the right to determine what hours their child attends school.

[BatteredBreadedOrSouthernFried]

You are wrong. You’ve misunderstood the legislation or are deliberately misrepresenting it for some reason. No idea why.

[donquixotedelamancha]

@prh47bridge

I understand exactly the argument you are making and recognise the technical correctness of it, but I wonder whether you are pushing it too far?

A school can certainly refuse permission for the child to be removed, but ultimate PR remains with the parents. If a parent were present, demanding a child's release then there is no right to physically prevent the child from leaving?

The school can ask for fines to be levied and ultimately exclude the child (both less than straightforward), but in practical terms there is little else it can do to enforce the legal position.

[Ttbb]

But the school has rights over the child by virtue of the parents' conferring those rights. That is the source of any right that school would have over the child (not the act that you have mentioned). It would be irrational for a court to interpret the act as you have and not at all in the spirit of the act which is to ensure that all children receive adequate education as opposed to the usurpation of parents' rights. It would also make a bad decision on policy grounds (this being very much a overreach of the reasonable interference of the state). Only a very illiberally minded judge would come to such a conclusion (bit then again we have a lot of those).

[PanelChair]

I'm inclined to agree with prh.

There's no obligation to enrol a child in school, as long as they're receiving an education, but once the child is enrolled then, yes, the HT has quite wide powers to make rules and parents are expected explicitly or implicitly to sign up to those rules via home-school agreements and the like. Ultimately, only a court could determine whether a rule saying children won't be released early for siblings' appointments was reasonable in the Wednesbury sense, but I suspect many courts would be wary of interfering in the management of a school.

[youarenotkiddingme]

When is it a parent will take a child out of school making them miss registration?

well considering there's an afternoon registration I'd say anytime after the morning one!
What is basically happening is if schools can refuse for you to remove child then any child with an appointment after 10am will have to miss school up until that point and will only return afterwards if there's time.
My ds neurology appointments are usually between 1-2pm. Therefore I collect him half hour before - he always misses pm registration and as lesson starts at 2.10 he doesn't return.
If school were going to refuse this he'd miss the whole day.

There is absolutely no reason a child leaving 10 minutes early is a problem - it'll only be tidying up and getting coats. That refusal was more about an unnecessary power trip.

[Collaborate]

Just a note to all those rubbishing prh's submissions, it might be a good idea, before challenging a lawyer on a legal thread, who has been good enough to quote the law, to respond with a little law of your own, otherwise it might give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about and are just having a guess.

[Quartz2208]

The court would have to,follow the technical correctness of the law though there is very little wriggle room.

The OP is asking about the legal side not how we would feel