Need urgent advice for friend

[fannybanjo]

Her exH is saying he is going to get their DD's (4) ears pierced (DC are staying with him for half term). She is livid and has told him under no circumstances should he do so BUT what can she do if he does? She has full residency order. Does she have to agree before he can do such a thing? She's cabin crew and about to fly to Japan.

.

I don't know if there's anything she can do really. Don't suppose many Mum's ask non-resident Dad's before they decide to have children's ears pierced so I guess the Dad has the same rights.

the dad shouldnt do that, but legally theres nothing the mum can do. but she should still state clearly that she doesnt want that to happen and hope hell respect that. but if its a power struggle thing, he wont.

its a nightmare. but if the kid wants it the mum has to bite her tongue and have her dignity and maybe say to him in private later that in future she wants to be consulted before doing something that big again.

the fight would be worse for the kid than the actual ear piercing if she wants it anyway.

my golden rule is - choose your battles wisely. if the kids fine, leave it be. if its detrimental, fight your case.

Things like this need both parents' permission. Just like medical treatment. Who is the resident parent is irrelevant afaik, what matters is who has PR.

It is not really in the same category as medical treatment. In fact, there are no legal restrictions on the age when a person can get a piercing - any age restrictions are set by the establishment, not law - so you cannot really use the law to fight against it. Places like Claire's Accessories only ask for one parental/guardian signature for under-16s so in practice it will be fairly easy for him to do.

It will be hard for your friend to accept but it is one of those things that can only be negotiated between the parents. The father has just as much right as her to parent how he chooses during his contact time, providing the child doesn't come to harm.

Thanks everyone. I did some research and she'd need a Prohibited Steps Order to stop certain things like ear piercings etc to be done without her consent. Yes, I think she's well aware that he will do what he wants but as the parent with residency order, does that not mean she has more control over such issues...? I'd expect not, just wondering.

Residence just determines where a child lives. It is Parental Responsibility that gives both parents equal responsibility and rights to carry out those responsibility. With the exceptions of schooling, important medical decisions and changing a child's name a person with PR can act unilaterally.

When parent's cannot agree between themselves it is open to either one of them to apply for residence, contact, specific issue or prohibited steps orders to regulate PR.

My DH was told by CAFCASS that he wasn't even allowed, as NRP, to take DSS to have his hair cut, so clearly some people interpret the law differently.

Is it something she feels strongly enough about to go to court? In some cultures it is very normal to get pierced ears at a young age - mine were - and I didn't suffer any ill effects as far as I know. Is he saying it to get a rise out of her? Then best ignored, I'd have said. I think MrsM123 gives good advice.

cheers balia! it took about a decade for me to figure out how to play the game actually. i had to look at myself as well and calm down a bit with the controlling everything issue. its hard. but if you keep your child at the forefront of your mind then you know what the right thing to do is/way to behave.

Well, seeing how ear piercing breaks the skin, it can be argued that the child would indeed come to some harm. It is the same principle as medical treatment because of this.
Of course, in reality the people in the shop have no idea they're not piercing the ears of a child of happily married parents.
It's a bit rubbish, I'd be furious.