Do you take "collective responsibility" for actions concerning your children?

[UnquietDad]

OK, this is going to be a bit vague, for which I'm sorry, but...

Do you, where there are two parents, buy into a collective responsibility idea?

i.e. if something is done by Parent A which Parent B doesn't approve of and Parent B would have done in a TOTALLY different way - do you back each other to the hilt in public and only have it out in private?

Or do you say to friends, family, teachers etc. "actually that was B's decision, I didn't want to do that but (s)he wouldn't listen?" Or is that unasseptable (sic) and totally disloyal?

back up to the hilt in public definitely

why whats happened??

I would say that I didn't agree with them but that we as a couple had decided to go with that idea.

but only if it was true and I wasn't being steamrollered.

No

BUT

We are separated, and he happens to do a lot of the parenting

Please keep opinions coming generally...

Will be more specific in a bit...

In public, I would back up the missus and expect the same in return.

DH and I always presented totally solid agreement when children were small . Now DS1 is 14 we have much more involeved discussion about issues as he can take part and weigh in with his opinion too.

Have to caveate though that we tend to reach concensus on things anyway. can't think of anything major upon which we disagree.

Can it be difficult for one person to present totally solid agreement when it is something they are opposed to in principle?

Um. Well, we agree on most stuff and the 'big' stuff - but there are disagreements which are a stereotypical gender split.

eg. Me: I Will Never Have a Nintendo DS, Games Console or similar set foot on this hallowed threshold
Him: sneakily goes off and gets said offending items and has no issue with them watching hours of TV or hours of playing computer games (unless clashes with important major sporting event, of course)

We argue over things like this but it's not a big deal. The children know we have different views, know that when they're with me it's one rule and with him it's another. Our friends and family know that there are some differences. I don't think it's disloyalty because it's not the big stuff. 'Tis part of rich tapestry of life.

Yes I would ay I back dh in public most of the time. I suppose I do have lapses but then I KNOW I am being a cow. The 'right' thing to do is certainly to be seen to be backing your partner and this goes for in front of the children as well.

Interesting, primula... so if asked, you'd be quite open about not having wanted the Nintendo DS in the house?

Say my mum queries something that dw does
and I actually agree that dw is making a mistake,
I would try and fob her off with a 'look, she is the mother, let her get on with it' and cut the debate short.

It must depend on the issue UQD.

My Dh didn't want the DC's christened but i did. As it turns out we haven't had them done because his antipathy was stronger than my desire IYSWIM. But, in that example I think we would struggle as a couple if such a huge issue ( as religion) was so important to both of us. IYSWIM

Totally depends on the point at issue.

That said, I think it would be petty & pathetic of me to publicly cross swords with dh even over something tiny - "well of course dd isn't getting on well with piano, but dh will have her practice in the morning before school when she's rushed, now if it were up to me ..." (That piano practice loggerhead is made up, by the way.) Doesn't it sound passive-aggressive, & just altogether cringe-worthy?

What we do do is have serious (private) strategy talks where we mutually decide to Do A United Front in practice despite differing views in theory. All the thrashing-out of consensus (mmm, compromise)gets done in those strategy talks.

Yep UD - I have been fairly open about dislike of such things.

However, my DH has sort of won because it turns out that after he bought the banned articles and the first intense fortnight or so, I've come to the conclusion that actually they're not all that bad and that both dc's do plenty of other stuff so it's not an issue.

However, watching crap Sky TV and excessive computer use (by ds aged 8) is still a thorny issue. DH has just subscribed to Runescape for ds and I had to let it be known that it could be cited in any future hypothetical divorce action

Always back up in public. This is a big one for me. Scream like a harridan in private if necessary! Actually though, it's never happened - we generally agree.

What have you done?

I am of stalinist parenting inclination.

DH is too woolly liberal for his own good sometimes

This is to do with the school and unauthorised absence.

A kept both children off school for a day on a point of principle.
B said that this was not really on.

The Head wrote a letter, refusing to authorise the absence.

After this, B said again that they ought to go in.
A refused again.
B said if it happened B would be very very unhappy about it and would make this clear to the Head.

B was working away that day.
A kept children off school as planned.

B made it clear to the Head that there had been a debate about the issue, and that an agreement had not been reached.

A hit the roof about this.

Discuss

Oh dear. Well, I think B has been a tattle-tale and rather un-grown-up, to be honest.

Hmm. I doubt the head cares much - s/he just sees that the children weren't there. So if s/he doesn't care, there was no need to tell him/her. So he/she should not have been told. I would be very cross if I were A. I'd be bloody furious if I were B!

Why did B not continue talking to A with a view to finding a solution
instead of going directly to head?

Yes, A justified in hitting roof.

Ahhhh .... now that is what I would define as Big Stuff (education, money, religion, ethics & morals)

We're both agreed on this kind of stuff. There may be differences of opinion sometimes, but they are slight, discussed and agreed & resolved. But if A and B are not .... ouch. Nasty.

Oh dear. Do you want us to vote for A or B?!!

There was a debate. No solution was reached as no compromise was on offer.

I am struggling to imagine what point of prinipal would require a childs absence from school. Am i being dim ?

dim and unable to spell...

It concerned industrial action, or lack of.

Maybe I am being unnecessarily vague, sorry.