Separated parents, father being selfish/unreasonable!

[highndry]

Posting this on behalf of someone close to me, looking for advice.

Basically we have a couple with 1 child who is at primary school. Couple separates and arranges 50/50 access(1 day about with alternating weekends?) with child, so far everything has been done through solicitors.
Mother requests to swap days around the last october break from school so she could have 1 week away on holiday(domestic, not foreign). This request was denied by father so mother had to travel back half way through holiday to pick up daughter so they could at least have a little break together.
All well so far,,,
Fast forward a few weeks and mother gets a call from after school club, daughter not present on the Friday, mother panics and calls Dad as it is 'his' day, he answers phone and calmly says he is away for the weekend with daughter, no real problem as it is his weekend but he has taken her out of school without mums permission. He says he'll be back Sunday. Turn out he was also away the Monday, another day off school but this time it is meant to be 'mums' day.
An argument ensues so mother gets in touch with her solicitor as the divorce proceedings are still ongoing. Solicitor says the father can do pretty much what he wants with daughter, including taking her out of school without mums permission, there wasn't much said about the fact the daughter wasn't brought back for the mother on the monday.

So, is there any advice I could give the mother, get a new solicitor?
Personally I don't think parents that have separated should be allowed to take kids out of school during term time without both parents consenting.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

as i understand it and have been in simualar situation myself what she has been told is correct as in he doesnt need her permission to take the child out of school but i understand why she is angry not to have been included in this disscussion. she can apply for a contact order which the court orders on which days and dates each parent has care if she doesnt think he is playiong fair but on his days he can pretty much do what he wants , sorry. the only time a child cant be taken out of the country is if a residence order is in place.

This bodes extremely badly for both of them.

If they can't communicate and both be sensible and flexible, this will turn into a very toxic and ugly situation.

Particularly when the child gets older and starts to resent being parcelled off '50/50' and wants more time with friends, after schoo activities etc, etc.

I appreciate that the father is a dick for not informing the mother of his plans, but why did she have to go straight to her solicitor about it?

Is it really impossible for them to try to talk about this face to face or via a mediator?

My advice would be: please, please try sorting this out yourselves. You've got to have pretty deep pockets and endless reserves of emotional stamina to go down this road.

I'm afraid kittycat68 is wrong about when the child can be taken out of the country. If there is no residence order in place you need the agreement of everyone with parental responsibility. If a residence order is in place it is normal for the parent with care to be able to take the child out of the country for up to one month without needing to consult anyone else.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what has happened, I agree with Spero that the parents need to figure out how to work together for the benefit of their child.

im affraid prh47bridge is WRONG! a child can be taken out of the country without the written permission of the other parent its only if they are not returned to the other parent thatthey can do anything about it!

whilst its always BEST that parents get along following separation its a sad FACT that many dont! if they cant be on the same page then solicitors must handle the situation that way neither party is likely to go back on agreed outcomes.

Kittycat68 - I am sorry but you are the one who is wrong. If you looked down these threads you would realise that I do know what I'm talking about.

Under the Child Abduction Act 1984 Section 1 it is a criminal offence to take a child under the age of 16 out of the country without the permission of everyone with parental responsibility. It doesn't matter whether or not you return the child to the other parent. The offence is committed as soon as you leave the UK.

Under Section 1(4) of this Act if you have a residence order in your favour you can take your child out of the country for up to one month without anyone's permission. So your original post was the reverse of the legal position.

yes as i said if you read it IT WONT STOP THEM TAKING THE CHILD OUT OF THE COUNTRY YOU DONT NEED PROOF OF PERMISSION TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE COUNTRY. You have completely missed the point!

I think i see what your getting at. My ex takes our children abroad on holiday. And i've never been asked if I've given permission.

It is true that you don't have to show written permission at the borders, so you won't be physically prevented from taking your child out of the country. But you could be arrested on your return.

You stated "the only time a child can't be taken out of the country is if a residence order is in place". In law that is incorrect as I have stated.

I made it clear I was stating the legal position. You chose to say that I was wrong. You did not make it clear that you were advocating committing a criminal offence by taking a child out of the country without the permission of all those with parental responsibility.

Just to add, I and others try to give correct legal advice on this forum. I object to being told I am wrong when I have stated the law correctly.

There are many laws which you won't be physically stopped from breaking. For example, if you have own car no-one will check that you've got a driving license and insurance before you get in and drive off. So in that sense you can say "you don't need a license and insurance to drive a car". However, that would be a misleading statement. In law you need a license and insurance to drive a car so that is the advice I would give on this forum in the unlikely event that the subject were to come up, and I would dispute any statement to the contrary.

I hope that is clear.

And of course, in this particular case, if you are just talking about whether or not you will be physically stopped from taking the child out of the country a residence order will make no difference. So however you look at it, your initial statement that "the only time a child can't be taken out of the country is if a residence order is in place" is still wrong. As long as you have the child's passport no-one will stop you.

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is this. At present there is no statute/legal rule or regulation preventing a parent from unilaterally exercising PR. All the other parent can do is to apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent something happening should they know about it beforehand or apply for a s8 order (Residence, Contact, Specific Issue, Prohibited Steps) to regulate PR.

However, there is some guidance from court eg permission from all those with PR should be sought to change a name.

As far as holidays abroad are concerned the prh47bridge is spot on. Under the Child Abduction Act 1984 it is a criminal offence to take a child abroad without the consent of all those with PR for the child although s1(5) makes the following exceptions;

"A person does not commit an offence under this section by doing anything without the consent of another person whose consent is required under the foregoing provisions if?
(a)
he does it in the belief that the other person?
(i) has consented; or
(ii) would consent if he was aware of all the relevant circumstances; or
(b)
he has taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person but has been unable to communicate with him; or
(c)
the other person has unreasonably refused to consent,"

"the prh47bridge" ??? Sorry I don't know where "the" came from

I had a prohibited steps in place as my exH is overly focussed on our eldeset child and the school had concerns. When he opposed me having residency in court (I have full time care & responsibility of our children), the Judge reinstated the PS until a final contact hearing in January. I try to be reasonable with exH but it doesn't work too well if things aren't on HIS 'terms'. I don't think the 50/50 is a helpful way forward if relations between parents are strained, could be confusing to the child. A more structured approach has been better for me, but I appreciate that it's horses for courses. Good luck!