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?

Without knowing facts ... can't see why keep kids off school 'as matter of principle'.

So side with B

However, even if blazing row/no agreement reached, B should not have gone to Head, even if 100% in right - because cannot reasonably expect Head to listen to one parent and not the other. Not an issue of whether in public or not - B should not have dragged in 3rd party.

You both need slapping with a wet fish

While I agree with B about school (I think, bit vague), I can't see why the Head needed to be party to the domestic. Unless Head was berating B, which might have been a bit hard to take I suppose...

Well, the Head sent an official - and quite snotty - letter stating that the absence would be considered unauthorised. Not berating B specifically, but implied criticism of both parents.

i think heads are obliged to do this so i think B should not take the letter personally and file it in the bin. It may not reflect the head's views at all.

Possibly true. It said something about "consultation with the attendance officer."

why didnt B just take them to school then if B thought it was a good idea

we would back each other most times but I think if it was a case of me not taking the children to school DH would not be amused at all

B was out of town (work)

But I still think it's a bit to say "it wasn't me, it was her" (or him of course)

I wonder if the Head was uncomfortable? I used to sit through parents evenings with divorced parents who blamed the other for their offspring's lack of work, and it did make me very uncomfortable.

It depends on the principle then if my child was being bullied and I pulled them out because the head wasnt dealing with it I would expect him to back me up regardless

if it was a teachers are on strike my kids wont cross the picket line even though schools are open etc well I wouldnt expect him to back me for that

I don't see how keeping the children off would help in a dispute over strike action . Or I have I got that bit wrong.

What point does it prove to the government?

Also, why another day as well - I'm a bit confused.....

Anyhow - that is not the issue here.

B should not have told head as head doesn't care and not relevant.

A should have respected B's position a little more.

If B had been a little less dogmatic, A might have realised that it was a bit daft and backed down sooner...

If B feels s/he has a good working relationship with the school, and one way to salvage part of that relationship is to emphasise that s/he did not support the absence, then I can see why B might have told head it was not a joint decision. However, it would probably be counter-productive because as TFM suggests it is uncomfortable being brought into other people's arguments.

To answer your OP - no I would NOT back dh to the hilt in public (unless it was something fairly trivial). My father used to expect my mum to do this and this caused even more arguments.

Right will read the thread now!

(fondant - it wasn't another day, it was the strike day. Have I misunderstood?)

peanut - you are sort of right in your second assumption. The teachers (NUT) decided not to strike and to keep the school open for the kids.

A kept them off to protest about these teachers not following the union.

B objected to this as the decision had been taken, rightly or wrongly, and the school was open.

Think totally ridiculous to involve the Head in the domestic dispute. It is not relevant to him/her.

Having said that, I wouldn't be able to back up A's decision to the Head if I didn't agree with it. If I was B I would tell A that I would have nothing to do with discussions with the Head on A's decision to keep the children out of school and A must sort it all out. If queried by the Head, B should just say that Head needs to take up with A.

Oh cabinet responsibility rules in the 400 house

Makes for much late-night hissing

"Why did you confiscate her mobile for 30 minutes and then give it back? We agreed that punishments should be meaningful, ie last at least a night."

Or "Why on earth did you make a threat and then not follow through? We agreed we must always follow through on threats"

I think B was right in that regard If I was being told of face to face I would defend my position

What stillstanding said. Good summary.

lol at the late night hissing quattrocento
same here

Ah, details at last!

If I had been B I would have done exactly what stillstanding just said.

I suspect you will tell us more about B's motives for going to the head.
Still seems odd to me. And definitely unnecessarily disloyal to A, I am afraid.

"cabinet responsibility" a good way of putting it.

Why some people are just not born to be politicians, I suppose... can you imagine going on Newsnight and defending to the hilt something you'd voted against with every fibre of your being?...

Ah so it was one day - the strike day.

I completely sympathise with B being mad about not taking action, but do not think keeping children home proves any kind of point.

I agree with head - decision has been made for better or worse.

Would have been better if she'd let the children go in and campaigned outside the school gates!

Bit of nonsense. I'd forget about the whole thing.

I think B could have (or maybe actually s/he did, as we don't know the details of the conversation with the Head) salvaged the situation as regards Head-mollifying quite tactfully - by saying something like "feelings run strongly in these kinds of situations" and letting the Head infer (a) B's support for the school and (b) that this was a one-off.

I do think explicit buck-passing was, well, just not the maturest option. It will also leave the Head wondering whether this is just a one-off, or whether s/he has now got to deal with some generally loggerhead parents.

I know you didn't ask this - but A was plainly in the wrong on that! Industrial action is for adults only IMO, children shouldn't be used to make political points in that way.

fondant - don't confuse us! B wanted them to go in, A kept them off in protest !

Stillstanding's answer is brilliant! Absolutely right. B's decision so between the head and B - not you.