HELP!My ex is threatening to block my DD's school choice!!

[ROZ12]

Hi all

What shall I do My ex is not consenting to my DD's high school choice and is saying he will block it via court/ It's a private school and she worked hard to get in and I'm paying full fees, he has refused to help with fees. But as he has legal responsibility he needs to sign for. The deadline is this Friday how do I get a signature? He is annoyed I said no to Thursday overnight contact therefore not helping with fees nor signing form.

What shall I do. My DD is wanting the school and not happy to go to local comp. She is too scared of her father to discuss with him.

Please advise.

[ROZ12]

I replied back and said contact and fees are unrelated and he said I agree to disagree!!

I mever stopped access when he didnt pay child support for 15 months!!

[racmun]

I'm just echoing what others have said I suspect it's more to do with who will be liable for fees from the schools perspective. ie who they can come after if you don't pay.

Why don't you just sign the form and put a covering letter in just saying that you are separated from her father and that as her Mother you are solely responsible for the fees and have signed the form accordingly.

I have a step son and my dh has parental responsibility but has never been required to sign anything in respect of her school.,

[MrsCakesPremonition]

Op, you might want to report your post to mnhq and get it deleted as it mentions your dd by name.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

That's your very last post beautiful name by the way.

[ROZ12]

Thanks its's a Arabic name!

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

The times I normally come across this happening is usually when the NRP has a proven history of domestic violence and the RP is trying to go about their lives unhindered obtain medical treatment, register with schools,de register from school that sort of thing.

With a state school the expectation of consultation is not down to the school it's down to either parent and the school or LA may ask for both parents signatures but they cannot insist on it,
How this tends to play out is quite silly but it happens lots will use de registering as an example (for home education)

RP who wishes to HE send de reg letter citing the section of the education act. Removes child from school (perfectly legal)

NRP waits until contact is on a school day and registers child (once child is registered its a legal requirement to attend) leaves child there.

This can be repeated loads as long as the school still has a place for registration.

It only stops when either party obtains a prohibitive steps order

RP would ask for an order forbidding him from registering NRP would ask for Forbidding HE.

I've also seen this happen with parents both registering at different schools its odd how weird people can be

medical stuff is the same nobody ever orders you to obtain both parents consent everytime I have known of one parent wanting it but the other not its been down to the objector to try and prevent it (unless hospital trust goes to court to force it)

Off the top of my head the only thing that at time of delivery (or attempt) where they can check or force you to evidence the other parents consent is leaving the uk (without a residency order).

If it was any other way round how on earth would the thousands of lone parents who don't even know how to contact the ex deal with anything?

[ROZ12]

Covering letter:

Opnions please:

DD's father has parental responsibility, I have consulted him throughout the 11 plus process. DD's's father has been informed regarding acceptance of place at school of choice.
DD's father is not contributing to fees. I on the other hand have been with DD every step of the way regarding the 11plus process and will be paying the full fees.

[Spero]

Letter seems ok but you could make it even more factual and straight to the point... I simply said. My daughter's father has PR but he does not live in this country. I have asked him if he objects to my decision to send my daughter to this school; he has not replied so I am assuming he has no objection. In any event, I will be solely responsible for the fees.

and they were fine with that.

the précis list came from a random google, I will see if I can find it again. I think it was published by a Chambers somewhere. I thought it was quite good and concise BUT on re-reading, I am not sure I agree with the 'religious and spiritual' bit being on list of 'don't need to consult' - religious issues can be a massive flashpoint.

but I think that just proves the point I was making earlier - PR is very poorly defined by statute, which doesn't help parents understand their rights and responsibilities.

[Spero]

the précis I found was from this site.
www.tbchambers.co.uk/Legal-Articles/understanding-parental-responsibility.html

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Spero, this is the bit (from the same link) that interests me.


10. PR may be held by more than one person in respect to a child at the same time (sections 2 (5) and 2 (6)). Where there are multiple PR holders, any PR holder may act alone and without the other (or others) in meeting that responsibility, unless any enactment requires the consent of more than one person in a matter affecting the child (section 2 (7)) – e.g. section 13 (1) (a) change of surname, and (b) removal out of UK (for over one month) where residence order in force.

11. Parents should not interfere with the day to day decisions of another parent when that other parent is caring for the child. This is the case whether the child is with that parent under an informal agreement or a residence / contact or shared residence order. Such micro managing is not appropriate. For the purposes of contact say, a residence parent might be entitled to know the non-resident parent's address, but not where they go out during the day or what activities they are doing. In A v A [2004] 1 FLR 1195 Wall J said:

'...it is a basic principle that, post separation, each parent with parental responsibility retains an equal and independent right and responsibility to be informed and make appropriate decisions about their children. However, where children are being looked after by one parent, that parent needs to be in a position to take day to day decisions that have to be taken while that parent is caring for the children. Parents should not be seeking to interfere with one another in matters, which are taking place while they do not have care of their children. Subject to questions which are regulated by court order, the object of the exercise should be to maintain flexible and practical arrangements whenever possible.'

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Your right religion is a huge flash point, but then again with the type of micro managing parent so can what they have for lunch and when you have a control freak anything can be a flash point.

My eldest went into my loft the other day to get some stuff for me and she came across an old folder in it were over 140 court orders regarding a different child,being taken to court only stopped when it was ordered that he was no longer allowed to without the courts consent. He was that petty it got to the point where a court hearing about jogging bottoms happened! Every single thing we did he took issue with madness given his own situation being less than ideal and he's now not allowed near dc.

[Spero]

I think it is a good précis about the micro managing issue; a lot of people worry that agreeing PR means they have to hold up their everyday life to scrutiny.

but as you have sadly experienced, PR is often just an excuse for someone to exercise a mad and pointless vendetta.