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?

fondant, you're getting your As and Bs mixed up....

Sorry - got my a's and b's mixed up.....!

Tbh I think it was unfair and unnecessary to involve children in a matter of principle which was only of concern to adults.

A's decision so A to deal with head.

B should not discuss with head as head doesn't care.

This is why names are so useful.....

Interesting the mixed responses on here. I rather thought that would be the case.

ie, what the Professor said!

And I managed to mix a response all on my own....

I am always uncomfortabe about involving kids in 'political' issus anyway. I hate seeing children on protest marches unless they are old enough to choose to be there because they have a grasp of the issue. I have a discomfort about a child being used to make a parents political point.

But thats just me

So in summary:

A was wrong to do it and make a "political" point as the strikes were for teachers, not kids (exactly what Head said)

B was wrong explicitly to come out and "break ranks" to Head

?

I don't think the answers are mixed. Unless I've missed it I think everyone is saying B shouldn't have broken ranks.

SEPARATELY, people are saying that A's actions weren't defensible, but that's a matter of two wrongs not making a right, not justification for B.

Am I wrong there?

I'm not against involving children - just don't think it proves any point in this case....

I agree pagwatch FWIW children not attending school is not going to make more people strike or the government pay them a fair amount of money

Yep unquietdad, I think that is the consensus

Come to think of it, as parents, the answer is normally - you are both wrong

A was wrong

B was wrong if s/he contacted the head just to tell them A was wrong but if b was confronted face to face at the gates I think B had a right to defend themselves

A was wrong

B was not wrong (mostly)

I think people can be difficult when they see situations happening 100% the other person's way and 0% theirs. It's the kind of thing which tends to lead to mark-overstepping.

I've seen it, for example, with friends who are divorced or separated and do things like using the children against each other, because they didn't get their way over an issue. You can't control X - you want to control something - so you control Y.

A little compromise goes a long way.

Yes I agree with your summary, UQD. Go on - are you A or B? I think you are B

Agree with peanutbear.

A sounds a bit daft/over-principaled is that a word?)

You can all come to your own conclusions

yes compromise is great but I think with separated parents that is something you have to work hard on all the time,
and it is difficult in those situations, you divorce because you dont see eye to eye, you dont agree so to have them back you in that situation is rather unlikely to happen

True.

I am a bit surprised at some of the answers on here though tbh - I'm obviously not a very loyal wife

A was wrong in the first place

B was right about DC going in, but completely shot him/herself in the foot by telling the head that they had disagreed.

I think UQD is B because it is odd to describe yourself as hitting the roof. OTOH he is a writer so may be doing it deliberately as a bluff.

I think you are B too because its a bit loaded against A