Can a child attend the school that a NRP teaches at?

[ThisMustBeMyDream]

Asking for my other half as he doesn't use forums like this.
He will be a primary school teacher. He lives 16 miles from his daughter. He intends to work in the area his daughter lives. The school he hopes to work at is directly behind the mums older childs school.
He currently has 5/14 arrangement.
He would like his daughter to attend the school he works at because it means that both mum and dad can be fully involved in her school life. If she attends a different school, he may never get to go to her events, where as her mum will always get to go (she doesn't work). There are also benefits to being a child at your parents school (I can testify to this as a kid who went to her mums school, and my DS who went to grandmas school where she was the headteacher).
He has compared the two schools start and finish times, and as they back on to each other with a direct route to the doors, drop off and pick up will be more than possible for mum when it is her days.
This will have to go to court as he knows mum won't agree to it.
Does anyone have any idea on what the court would view as better for a child? To be in a school that older sibling goes to, or to attend the school dad works at if both schools are next to each other and it isn't difficult to do the school run for the mum?

He needs to decide on what to do. As he could work somewhere a bit closer to home if the court are never going to agree to it. We don't know any other separated teacher dads to ask what happened for them!

It is entirely disingenuous.

Clearly certain posters can not read. Or are too far stuck in their own projections...

He was due to finish in 2020, however the order that waa passed at the start of december meant he could reconsider the part time option. So he is on course to complete his 120 teaching days now. He had already done the theory and first assessment prior to the previous case. So long as he does the 120 days, he can complete this summer.

Do I really need to give every single tiny bloody detail on each thread? I'd be here all day, and no one would read as it would be the world's longest thread. Why on earth would I need to include that info on here? It was enough to say he will finish this summer. Bloody hell.

The other thread states her position statement was that she wanted to reduce contact to put their child in nursery 5 days a week so she could work. As it was, she didn't bring it up, nor did anyone else. So clearly it was put in there for other reasons. And not the reason she stated. She hasn't worked beyond saturday jobs from her teenage years. She does not have a career to return to.

He was a DV victim (as was the child). SS were involved in the first case as opposed to cafcass. They agreed to 3 days a week with both parties in the final court order. The order stated parents to agree to increase overnights. After 6 months of refusal to increase overnights (by 1) and breaches of the order, he returned to court this time unrepresented. It went to a final contested hearing, which did not happen in the first hearing. Oh, and as for controlling behaviour, the section 7 report specifically focuses on the controlling behaviour of the mother. Not the father.

After this contested hearing, he went back to the first barrister who knew the case. She has subsequently given him advice. Paid for by his dad. Not him. As he can't afford representation. His dad paid for the first case. He didn't ask him the 2nd time as he believed that being unrepresented would not go against him. He won't go unrepresented again.

Seriously, pack the detective work in, because you're making yourself look bad. I put the pertinent information in to a new thread. No one is obliged to put an entire history on here. So stop with the accusations. This kind of stuff is mumsnet at it's worst. It isn't clever, nor kind. It really makes you look small. I guarantee you'd never say any of that to a person in real life. So don't do it online.

We had a strong suspicion she was not telling the truth. Given she didn't bring it up at court, and hasn't done since, it is safe to say it was simply used as a tactic to try and thwart contact (which she has tried to do previously).
I wanted advice on how the court would view it because he couldn't be 100% that it wouldn't be brought up at court. It wasn't. That answered that particular question. She is not planning any imminent return to work, or she would have brought it to the courts attention. Not just stuckit in a position statement which was presented to hima couple of days prior to court.

So he’s been to court 3 times already. Most recently a few months ago, and now he wants to go back again, not even over contact which has been settled, but to force her to send the child to “his” school. Something tells me he will be taking this woman back to court again and again until a judge intervenes and makes an order preventing him doing so.

No. He has been through the court process twice. Commenced in oct 17. Concluded mar 18. Back in sept 18 concluded Dec 18.

He will make an application next when it needs to be done. Probably later this year. It is fairly common that a court order made under age 2 may need to go back a few times as the child gets older.

OP, if a friend said to me “my partner will be qualifying next year,” and then out of the blue announced that he was applying for jobs this year I would assume that he had either dropped out of the course and was applying for something else, or that she’d got it wrong.

There’s such a thing as not having to repeat every single detail on each subsequent thread, of course there is. But when the details are so very relevant people will remember previous threads or read them if they are mentioned and conclude that the OP is being inconsistent in order to suit a particular agenda. And yes, of course anyone would challenge that in RL, why wouldn’t you?

But even if you take all of that out of the equation, the fact here is that your partner had his access reduced and every Christmas was awarded to his ex precisely because of the relationship with her sibling. Therefore it is entirely unrealistic to even contemplate that they will order the child to attend a particular school because the parent whose access has been reduced and who has been told he won’t have his child at Christmas teaches there.

If the man isn’t even allowed to see his child at Christmas why on earth would he think that the courts would order the school to admit her so that she can go to his after school club, which is essentially what we’re talking about here. And let’s not forget that the man doesn’t have mid-week overnight access so he won’t be having contact with his child at that point, she will be in after school club, and he will be working.

But it’s clear that he is an absolute control freak who will stop at nothing to get his own way and control his ex in any way he sees fit. I can see why she ran the instant she found out she was pregnant. BTW, is he on the birth certificate? And if he is, how was that achieved given she ran as soon as the pregnancy happened and he didn’t have contact for the first year? Because if he isn’t on the BC then he doesn’t have parental responsibility and therefore has no say in what school she attends anyway.

It is fairly common that a court order made under age 2 may need to go back a few times as the child gets older.

Yes for contact. This isn’t contact. This is so he can control what school the child attends. Because if she goes to “his” school he can then control what the Mum finds out about, he can prevent letters going home to her, prevent her finding out about issues her child is having, etc. This is all about control.

I'm done here. This is MN at it's worst.
I already said he has had legal advice. Opinion is no longer required. Unless you wish to waste your own time.
Knock yourselves out.

Pick up those toys and pit them back in the pram.

I realise that you might not like being told that the whole plan is pie-in-the-sky ridiculous (totally hypothetical, and if he wants to get a job at the school his DC will attend them apply for one there, not the one next door to it FFS)

But that doesn't make it wrong for people to say there's an elephant in the room.

Posters are telling you - totally politely and reasonably - what you need to hear. That is not always the same as what you want to hear.

ILoveMaxBondi makes a good point though. This is a high conflict situation and his ex can argue that it will negatively impact on her relationship with the school if she is forced to send her child somewhere he works. That's before you look at the ridiculous scenario of splitting up siblings.

If the child was the victim of domestic violence, why has the mother got custody!

If having a parent at the same school
was a big advantage to the child, it would be used successfully in school appeals. It's cruel to split up the siblings.

He got the job. In fact, he has 2 job offers now

well, that's very unusual. Teaching is a strange profession in that, if you are offered a job you have to accept or decline on the spot. You can't say "oh, hang on. I have another interview next week so won't decide until then" so it would be HIGHLY unusual to have 2 job offers. As with everything else, it just doesn't seem to add up!

If dad can be fully involved (which will be difficult when he is at another school
OP I still don't get it. How does he think he is going to be more involved in her education just by teaching at the same school? It just doesn't happen like that. I have been a teacher for decades and you can't be involved in your own child's education by teaching at their school. That would be downright unprofessional.

You can't say "oh, hang on. I have another interview next week so won't decide until then"
You kind of can in some cases. I was offered a job, had another interview the next day and wanted to wait to see if I got that one. The head agreed to give me 24 hours to give my answer.

I think he needs to think about what he can do to please his ex wife and help his child. That would surely be in bending over backwards to support the mother's hoice of school and let the girl go to school where her older sibling is -tha tis the better long term plan.

Instead he seems to be one of those serial litigant fathers who want to score points all the time.

On the more general issue our son when his father and I were married did go to school where his father taught as we only had to pay 15% school fees and it was a good prep school. It needs to be handled very carefully to ensure there is no worse or preferable treatment of the child and where possible to keep a total separation of them during school time.

I think it is very unlikely he will be granted his wish. As that is the case he should not waste the court's time and tax payer costs as it were in providing a court and judge and think of lots of ways he can make his child and its mother happy.