AIBU? DS was ill and the school have marked it as an unauthorised holiday and are threatening to fine me!

[WeAreEternal]

A couple of weeks ago DS (7) had an upset stomach, he D&V over night and most of the next day.
First thing in the morning (a Thursday) I called the school and let them know he was ill.
He was feeling better by the evening but as he had D&V school policy is 24 hours off, so I kept him off Friday too.

I received a letter from to school yesterday saying that those days have been marked as an unauthoried holiday as "although we received a phone call from you stating that (DS) was ill, we are led to believe that DS was in fact on a holiday to XXXX on these two dates"

The letter goes on to say that if he was genuinely ill they expect me to provide evidence such as a doctors appointment card, a prescription, a medication receipt or something simmilar that can "verify my version of events".

I am a medical professional, I know when when my DS needs medication or to see a GP or when he just has a bit of a stomach bug and needs rest and fluids.
Who would take a child to the GP or buy medication for D&V anyway?

How on earth can I prove that DS was ill?
And why are they even querying this?
AIBU to think this is bloody ridiculous?

Anyone have any ideas?

Well that's not true in a lot of cases where burden of proof is other way around.

In this case school can get a prosecution. If the kid wasn't there and no plausible reason was given with proof. Etc. I know. I was surprised too.

In this case school can get a prosecution

They can issue fixed penalty tickets.

The recipient can refuse to accept it and take it to court. It wouldn't get that far, as the CPS would throw it out and give the school a flea in their ear. The school would have to have a death-wish to pursue it, as (assuming the OP is accurate in her account) they have nothing beyond "it seems a bit odd" or "someone told us", a "someone" they'd have to produce as a witness willing to give evidence under oath. Everything the school has is hearsay.

It is a myth, promoted by schools (and presumably believed by some on this thread, such as LordPalmerston) that a fixed penalty notice in some way precludes a court appearance. In this case, failure to ensure school attendance is a criminal offence, and the evidence the school presented would have to be "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no reversal of the burden of proof here: the offence requires summary conviction on S.444 of the Education Act 1996, and the offence is "fails to attend regularly at the school" and the defence is S.444(3) The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school ... (b) "at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause, or". Parent gives evidence of that under oath. School does...well, what exactly?

The penalty notices are S.23 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which amends the 1996 Education Act. It doesn't change the burden of proof in the slightest: it just means that the accuser can issue a fixed penalty notice and the accused can pay it and stop any other action. Refusal to pay leaves the ball in the school's court to go via the EWO to, eventually, the CPS. Over a one day absence? Right: because the EWO and the CPS are really going to get involved in a petty headteacher behaving like a loon, aren't they?

Details here.

Tell the school to fuck off.

they have been to court. that is how i know

steady on Friday - I was only speaking about one I know of that went to court.

its if they dont pay the money. i know! calm it down!

one kid - didnt turn up to school for a week, Didnt pay the money. DIdnt turn up to court.
was believed to have been on holiday. NO proof needed to SHOW why they thought he was on holiday ( was facebook related) - parent didnt offer any defence

Guilty - fined

they have been to court. that is how i know

Go on, tell all. They've secured a summary conviction with a reversed burden of proof? Seriously? I suspect there may be more, er, details to this than you imply.

Your son's school is very badly run. I am not sure I would have him continue there after this year.

This whole thing is absurd. They are accepting third hand information rather than what you have told them.

I'd write a letter to the Head, the Board and the LA.

Time for parents to stand up to this bullshit dictatorial crap.

no. that was it.
I asked if the school had proof if he was on holiday. Was told not and that it wasnt needed - he hadnt been at school and that was what the parent was charged with

I'm shocked by some of the stories on this thread. Totally ridiculous.

*one kid - didnt turn up to school for a week, Didnt pay the money. DIdnt turn up to court.
was believed to have been on holiday. NO proof needed to SHOW why they thought he was on holiday ( was facebook related) - parent didnt offer any defence

Guilty - fined*

So when you said "burden of proof is other way around" you were inaccurate. Yes, if you're accused of an offence, don't turn up at the trial and don't produce a defence, you can be convicted. The court can take the prosecution evidence, entered before the case, at face value (the CPS presumably thought it strong enough to go to trial). That's not a reversed burden of proof, that's a fuckwit not entering a defence.

oh - ok then , yes. I was shocked that school could allege they were on holiday though and not provide proof - if the parent had argued the toss they would have had to SHOW he was ill, no doubt

and calm down the fricken quoting! its very aggressive

Quoting is now aggressive?

What the fuck is wrong with MN these days?

They provided sufficient proof that the prosecution service were willing to take the case forward (the test is usually 50/50). That evidence might have been as straightforward as "the child wasn't in school at there's no note to say why", which is an offence, and they'd have proof of it.

The parents would have to be mad to lie in court, because perjury is scary. They called the school's bluff and lost. School: child absent, no explanation. Parent: not present in court. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Yep: the offence isn't the holiday, the offence is the child being absent without explanation.

That's unlike the OP's situation. The OP has provided an explanation for absence, an explanation they'd presumably be willing to repeat under oath. What's the school got again? There's the reasonable doubt, right there. If the school wants to go into court and accuse a medically qualified parent of lying under oath, based on hearsay, then a head might be enough of a loon to try, but the LEA lawyer (and the governors) will sedate her before it happens.

I work in a hospital and constantly on the loud speaker it says 'if you have had d or v in the last 24 hours do not enter the hospital' I suspect the rule would be the same for a GP. Tell them to prove you we're on holiday, nicely and then you can respond professionally. Don't get into a row over it with the school, your DS still needs to attend.
Maybe they new the fine to fund their Christmas drinkies ;)

WRT denying terminally ill parents etc holidays - it is not the head twacher's fault - they HAVE to. At least they do in our LEA. I know the head of one of my sons schools thinks the new rules are ridiculous, has situations where she thinks a holiday would be far more important for the family than school (for similar reasons to terminal illness) but has NO power to authorise. None at all - & she thinks it stinks as well.

At least they do in our LEA.

Sounds like a good reason to become an academy.

saintly - is that true? I thought the HTs had authority to make a decision in exceptional circumstances. It feels as though HTs are using this new rule to wash their hands of tricky decisions.

Ah special school - so not quite as straightforward. And of course full of kids who cannot holiday at busy times for a variety of reasons.

Do the new rules not affect academies then? One of my kids is at an academy & we had exactly the same LEA letter as the special school sent out. Was word for word the same.

It seems to come down to codes. So I had to recently request a day off school for filming (for academy son). Granted easily as my son was licencesed by the LEA anyway & there's a code for it (educated off site?? Dunno). But there's no code for 'valid reason for a holiday such as terminally ill family me member'.

All a bit different to the OP's situation (which would have me writing to everyone in sight - including the LEA as the stupidity may well be coming from them).

From the horses mouth cakes. It may vary from lea to lea but I know our (very good & reasonable & understanding) head has NO discretion. Nor is she happy about it.

Hope you manage to get to talk to someone on Monday Op.

saintly is right - it's all down to codes. There are even codes for late before register closes and late after register closes. These I believe are unauthorised absences. However if your late due to a Hosptial apt or dental appointment it goes in as medical. (m). There are also codes for Ill (I) and educated offsite, on part of a school related educational trip, school closed etc. This is why in the SS I work in any child who may be fed by pump so late or unable to attend FT because they are unwell enough have it written into their statements. Then it can be registered as educated offsite. It's written in statement as HE during these times.