Parental Responsibility & Schools

[halfa]

Posting for brother ... Also posted in legal, but hes desperate for advice.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

My son has now been proved to not be mine biologically (5). I was on his birth certificate and as such had PR. We have court approved DNA test saying i am not father.

Ex has taken this into school and stated her intention to remove me from BC, and requested that school do not share information with me. First i heard of it was when i turned up today to make an appointment for parents evening next week.

They have said i am no longer entitled to information!!!! Is this correct? At the moment i am STILL on the birth certificate, so surely i still have PR?

I appreciate it will go eventually, am currently refusing to sign the declaration the registry office sent to me and i will be applying for a PR order in the new year.

But in the meantime i could do with advice on the legailities of the school. Dont want to go in all guns blazing if they are right, but dont want to just accept this either.

Thanks

Saltatrix...this is why I have asked booyhoo to leave that part of the debate alone now as it is not really helping.
Not sure the woman has a new partner, if I read it correctly the biological father is now involved in the child's life but not as the woman's partner? I'll go back and reread in case that's wrong.
Either way, it is dreadfully said for the OPs brother and the child.

the reason i haven't dropped this as ordered is because aside from the OP, i think other posters are reading and learning from threads. if i think someone is wrong to assume what they did from the OP then i will tell them and i will tell them why. if someone insists they weren't wrong and insists that i am wrong then i am happy to explore their theory.

i apologise to the OP that thsi is detreacting from your own issue and if anyone wishes to discuss my own point further i am happy to do so on a new thread.

dreadfully sad, not said.

Jeez

Sorry I made a mistake not the new partner the bio father ( in the second post OP said the bio father is getting involved)

I had to go back myself and reread Saltatrix, as I wasn't sure.

OP, have found this. It is an excerpt from a longer reply to a father's enquiry, but very similar to your brothers. Hope it helps.

^If you are removed from the Birth Certificate then you will lose Parental Responsibility, even if your name is only marked as removed whilst it still appears, as only a biological father (or believed biological father) can gain PR in this way and it is lost once the certificate is altered.

This will mean that you will not have PR for your son as this is not granted by a contact order. You will also be unable to apply for a Parental Responsibility Order unless you are the biological father, and as you and the mother were not married can not apply for a Step Parent Parental Responsibility Order.

The only way you would have of gaining PR would be if you were to gain residence for the child, which automatically grants PR to the person with residence for the duration of the order. However there needs to be good reason for the court to grant this and it needs to be shown to be best for the child.

This will mean that you are not able to seek reports etc from the school for this child, although potentially you may be able to apply to court and ask that you are able to access these and for them to decide on the issue of which school the children attend using a Specific Issue Order, and the court would use their discretion when deciding whether or not to grant this.^

OP get your brother to contact and join Fnf (or call on his behalf). They can probably give more help to him as to the legal situation here, though it is a bit of a grey area I fear.
Fnf is families need fathers, a charity that helps non resident parents and extended family memebers stay together when families break down. It is NOT that other organisation you may have heard of.

Ok basically a school has a legal obligation to provide information all those with PR, whether they are a parent or otherwise. It only matters that they have PR.

Your brother has PR as he is named on the child's birth certificate. Whether he is incorrectky named on there or not is irrelevant at this point really. He has PR, she can not prove he does not at this point.
Waving a paternity test at school isn't really acceptable as evidence or PR being removed. Stating she intends to seek to have it removed does not mean it has been or that it will be.
I think the school may be on shaky ground if they rely on the payernity test and her say so, though of course it's hard for them being in middle here so I do appreciate their stance on this for now.
Howeveryour brothe rneeds to be proactive here. I would suggest to the head they need to consult their legal team on this one as your brother currently has PR and will be fighting any attempt to remove it. Therefore they have a legal duty to speak to him until PR is removed, and there is no guarantee that PR will be removed. Very nicely tell the head you appreciate the difficult position for them, but that you think it would be a good idea for them to legal advice on this as they have a duty to involve your brother at this point in time and to speculate on possible future events is not helpful to his son's welfare at this time.

Fnf may be able to help you with some points you can put to school re this and getting them to get their legal advisors to think about it is the way to go for now I feel. You may find that pushing a bit makes them do some of the legwork/research here. But don't give ground or be soft or be too quick to accept and walk away.
Make it clear he has PR and needs to speak to school about his son. Don't get angry or difficult. Assure the school that he appreciates they are in a difficult position, but so is his son and he needs to speak to school regarding his welfare. If they still say no then suggest they consult their legal advisors as they do have a legal obligation to all those with PR and that includes your brother.
Throw the ball into their court for now and make them run round.

With regard to keeping PR - slightly more tricky but not impossible.
I heard of one case in the states where 3 siblings were found not to biological children of their 'dad'. He went to court over maintenance, the judge said that as he was their father all this time it was unreasonable to have all the history put aside and to all intents and purposes he was their dad. He also had to continue paying maintenance for the 3 children as by being their parent all that time he had come to assume the responsibility even though he was not biologically their father.

So if your brother's child thinks of, and has known, your brother to be his father all this time it is easy to see that he would not understand if this was suddenly changed. So it may be in dc's best interest for your brother to continue to be his dad and continue to have PR to enable him to continue that role.

You/He needs a very good sol, or a very good/experienced McKenzie's friend, to help him through this. I would suggest Fnf is a good place to start, and perhaps ask for Ruth as I think she may have some experience of PR cases where you're not the biological parent, thought not exactly in the same circumstances as your brother. If she can't help you I'm sure she knows someone who can. Please note McKenzie's friends do charge expenses and costs, but their advice and help is still a lot cheaper than a sol.

Booyhoo, just got in and found it quite amusing you've been trying to argue that black is white. Lying by omission is just as bad, if not worse than lying.

The simple fact is that my assumptions were correct and your "theory" wasn't. You see the good in people, no matter how unlikely. There's no shame in that. We all make mistakes. I'm a natural cynic. I'm more a "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." type of guy.

And as for the whole one night stand thing. Forgive me if I am cynical but given the whopper she's been living with for five years, her credibility is somewhat shot.

As White&nerdy has said, the real victim here is the poor child whose world has been totally rocked. The father he loves unconditionally and the only one he's known. The father who has offered unconditional love in return and is still fighting to remain a part of his life is in fact just some guy. And now some random stranger is now going to come into his world, whom he will be expected to call Dad.

What's the best long term? I doubt anyone has the answers? Is it best for OP's brother to continue to play a role in his life until adulthood? Or perhaps withdraw slowly? What if the ex changes her mind in x months/years time? What if the new "dad" is a muppet?

It's utterly utterly tragic and could have all been avoided if the lying cheating "woman" had come clean from day 1. As it is she's probably screwed her kid up for life.

Hold on - in Halfa's first post she said the child in question is 5, then in her second post said her DB & the child's mother have been split up for 5 years. Am I missing something here? Has this been going on for 5 years?! Did they split when mother was pg/when the boy was a baby but OP's DB only recently found out about paternity, or have they split recently because of the paternity issue? It's all very confusing.

niceguy i totally agree with you. teh child and teh OP's brotehr are victims in this.

as i said before. my issue was the fact that you assumed so much about this woman from so very little information. you didn't even wait for the whole story. as far as you were concerned this woman, based on the knowledge that she had sex with two men was a lying cheating slapper. there was no indication in the OP that she had lied or cheated or that she was promiscuous. you decided that all by yourself.

now, how was i arguing black was white?

Guys your continuing 'discussion' is not of any help to OP or her brother. Perhaps you could take it elsewehere if you want to continue debating it...

gillybean you will notice i have already suggested that.

Hi everyone.

Thanks for the replies. I will pass them onto DB. Its also been interesting to see the debate!

Right to try and clarify, although to be honest its all a bit whirly round in my head.

DB and his ex had a very ... urm ... off and on relationship. They split up at the time in question, and were on a break for a period of 10 days (oh yeah). Apparently during this time, his ex witnessed him on a date with another woman, and went out got drunk and had one night stand with bloke. 5 days later, DB and her were back together. She found out she was pregnant late (not until she was 14 weeks). She assumed that it was DBs. (hmmmmm) They split up when son was 8 months. (DBs decision)

It was hard for DB to have access originally as she made it very difficult, and we as a family, wrongly i now think, advised him to just give her time to settle down. From about 16 months DB tried to discuss / write about contact.

When son was 2.5 DB got sol to write asking for an agreed progressive increase in contact, to build up to include him having overnights. Ex refused all contact. DB went to court. They were in court for 2 years, DB has suffered contact centres, CAFCASS reports and all sorts. Progress was finally starting to be made, DB was having 10 - 6, and review in May for overnights. Ex dropped the paternity bombshell. Review hearing in May put all contact increase on hold whilst waiting for results. Results came back in Oct that DB not dad.

Court have sent DB and ex off for mediation to discuss way forward, and back in court in Feb. Ex not attending mediation. She is still grudgingly keeping contact going, but is making it very difficult. Mention was made in this months mediation that the school have concerns over sons mental state. (he doesnt know DB is not his dad yet)

DB went to school to discuss this with them, and was met with the refusal to share info.

Soooooooo thats it.

DB is devestated and i feel useless. For now i have advised he takes a letter in stating he still has PR by virtue of being on BC. Then i think we need to look at finding a solicitor specialising in PR stuff. Although hes selp repping at the moment, but i feel this might be over his head.

Sorry this has turned into an essay!

Thanks for the support though. I just wish ..... well many things

If he's self rep then he should approach Fnf for help. A McKenzie friend is often more experienced that a sol as they specialise and have lots of resorces/experience available to them. Please go look at their website and do call them for advice.

If he can afford sol fees then the memebership of Fnf is well worth it. They have given me brilliant help and advice in the past and have a good support network too.

Please check them out
www.fnf.org.uk/

I think your brother needs to take a step back and think about his feelings. Also consider what is in the long term best interests of the poor boy.

He needs to make sure that if he continues to fight that its for the right reasons. Sometimes after a long & protracted battle, people are so used to the fight that they lose sight of the goal. In this case, the goal has totally changed. He's no longer fighting to be a part of HIS son's life, he's fighting to be a part of someone else's son's life.

Longer term, if I am honest, I can't see what good can come out of him continuing contact. The anguish & hurt will affect his relationship. The poor boy will be confused if another man enters his life as his father. How is he expected to spend time with both & his mum?

Personally I am of the opinion that if the bio dad is getting involved then its better for the child if your brother withdraws from the scene. I understand how much he must be hurting but the priority is the boy.

Lastly and coming back to the original point, the schools thing. I really think this is irrelevent in the grand scale of things. Whether or not he can force school to disclose information is a bit like rearranging the deckchairs of the Titanic isn't it? Right now he has bigger fish to fry.

Halfa what is the boys relationship with your DB like? Are they very close? Or has it been strained given the the mum has made it difficult? I think the relationship between your DB and the boy is crucial to this, as in how close they are and how much time they have spent together.

Halfa, I'm sorry... that phrase "They were in court for 2 years, DB has suffered contact centres, CAFCASS reports and all sorts. Progress was finally starting to be made"

Hmm, it takes a LOT of bad behaviour on a parent for court to advise the use of contact centres, this recommendation does NOT come lightly and they cannot be used at the request of a parent.

If CAFCASS report is not enough to ensure he gets more time with the child, there should be something very wrong. The fact that the school is concerned about the child's mental health talks volumes about how bad contact is affecting this child. I was told once by a NSPCC advisor that schools don't comment formally on contact issues UNLESS there are serious grounds for concerns.

So, they have had a no doubt soul destroying battle for 2 years, that should make things very difficult for the child and his carer (resident parent). He is not making progress via legal route, there is evidence that contact may not be in the best interest of the child (CAFCASS /Contact centre) and on top of that, the child is not his.

It is time for your brother to back off and let this child and mum move on with their life. Sorry.

Hmm, it takes a LOT of bad behaviour on a parent for court to advise the use of contact centres, this recommendation does NOT come lightly and they cannot be used at the request of a parent.

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely rubbish. All it takes is a mother to make unfounded accusations, state she is "scared" of the father, declare she wants supervised contact to take place and refuse to make arrangements other than a contact centre ... the courts are VERY quick to roll out the use of a contact centre. It is not always used as a last resort or when something terrible has been proved.

A father can go from having 50/50 care of their child to being forced to use a contact centre. It isn't unheard of.

Chandra are you saying he should just walk away?
Should all non-bio dads do that after a split?

I agree with choc. There are many reasons why a contact centre is used.

Wellwasi, I dont think that all non-bio dad's should automatically walk away but in this instance, I really think that long term that its the lesser of the two evils for the child.

Unfortunately thanks to the lies from the mother, there's no magic formula which will make everything ok. The best outcome I think anyone can hope for is the child is not messed up for life.

How can you simply walk away from a child who you care for and have brought up as your own? Are you saying that children who are adopted will not be felt about the same because they are adopted? Or when you have families with step children or foster children?

And what about those cases where babies were swapped at the hospital. Do you think those parents who brought up a child believing it to be theirs should also simply abandon that child and never look back!?

How is this child, who already is causing worries as to his emotional wellbeing, going to react is his dad (becasuse that's who he is to him) just vanishes and never comes back.
My own ds has asked me what he did wrong and why his dad doesn't like him, and this is about someone who he has never met. I can't imagine how awful it would be for the OP's nephew to simply be abandoned by his dad as you are suggesting he should.

Even the court clearly sees this as not being a straight forward case which is why they are reviewing in February and suggesting mediation in the mean time.

From the sounds of it (protracted court case, fighting for contact and being forced to use contact centre and court orders to obtain increased contact, now bombshell that he isn't even father and being obstructive with school too) all points to a mother who is prepared to wreck her child's life to get what she wants.

And no, you'd have to be really uneducated to believe that contact centres are only ever ordered by court and that involving a contact centre means that the parent is somehow unfit. Some resident parents insist on them simply to frustrate contact and hope their ex will go away if they make it difficult enough. So they stop all contact and make up false allegations and delay contact restarting properly by insisting it will never happen or only through a contact centre. If you believe otherwise you'r very nieve.

And parents who purposely do this throw into doubt those who do have real fears or concerns over the welfare of their dc.
These people also probably also believe that family courts know what they're doing, are fair, and don't make bad decisions or screw up children's lives. They probably also think the CAFCASS do a good job, though you'd only have to look at an OFSTED report to see that most are not.

Could you as a parent turn around and tell a child that oh actually dad isn't your dad and I suspected it all along and now I'm going to stop you seeing him ever again...

It's a horrible situation, and I do feel for your db OP. His son need him. And yes despite what others say I still say his son because that is what he is. This isn't about biology, it's about what the child knows and believes.

To safeguard his son's welfare is what matters here above all and everything else.

No, I'm not saying that all non-bio parents should walk out. But I realise that we are only hearing his part of the story and unfortunately, reading between lines, I don't think that the behaviour of the man has been near angelic.

I understand that CAFCASS/Social Services/Etc. make mistakes but how can we be assuming here that a horrible unfair thing has been done to the non resident parent without knowing the other side's story?

How do we know we are not advising a very difficult man to keep fighting for a child he is constantly upsetting? How do we know if the mother is not a liar happy to wreck her child's life to get his way, but a mother happy to be even be portrayed as a cheater in order to protect her child?

Don't forget that Halfa said that she is still ok for the child and "father" to have contact (albeit only "some" and "flexible"). So I can see that despite the fact that the child can't remember a time when they were a family (they split when baby was 8m old), didn't have any kind of regular contact for almost 3 years, and only limited contact over the last 3 years, mother is still agreeable for this contact to continue, but not for it to be increased to the 50/50 the father wants. That doesn't sound to me like a disgraceful behaviour, but perhaps just a mother putting the interests of the child first. I think that jumping from "no overnight contact at all" to 50/50 is not something that the courts would easily entertain.

This is already a very difficult case for the father even before we consider he is not the bio father. So, as niceguy mentioned before, he needs to see what's best for the child in the long term.

I believe this guy should back off from that battle of increasing contact to 50/50.

Perhaps if everyone in this thread had said "stop contact", I would have been saying "fight for it". But it seems to me this discussion needed a devil's advocate.

Maybe the mother is facilitating the little contact because she has been ordered to by the courts?

She is still doing it...