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?

A was wrong.

B was put in a tricky position, given that B had to deal with the head.

I thought A was UnquietDad.

Just out of interest... does it make any difference how B contacted the Head?...

Sorry - I've mixed up my A and B.

B was wrong.

A was in the tricky position blah blah.

B is UnquietDad.

Depends if B was snitching (bit dodgy) or just responding to the Head (perfectly reasonable).

Can't understand what A was thinking of in the first place though.

UQD - not sure it matters. Unless b blurted it out during sex

I think if I disagreed with a dh decision and was put in a situation where I had to answer for that decision, I still would not defend myself if that meant showing any disagreement with dh to a third person. I would rather reply with some vague "i respect your position but I am afraid I don't want to discuss this right now" or words to that effect. Then, I would go back home and kick dh ass, as needed.

yes a lot

if B just rang or wrote and said to the head after receiving the letter and said "" well it wasn't my idea miss I told A no to do it but A wouldn't listen "

then B is behaving like a child

if however the head contacted B and asked for an explanation and B said You will have to discuss it with A I was working away on that day and so wasn't part of the decision making process

that would be better

What pagwatch said LOL!

I reckon A us UQD

I think it does make a difference - as if B and head are on friendly chit chat terms and B just happened to say in discussions - it was my socialist partner who wanted the kids off school, not me, that's different to B receiving letter, and instantly phoning up head to say "wasn't MY fault:"

Actually, both had to "deal" with the head in the sense that one had to inform of the decision and the other had to deal with the fallout.

pagwatch and also [ugh]

Why did they "have to" - I thought the head replied by letter?

peanutbear - it was kind of a mixture of those two options...

UQD - With your scenario there is no compromise is there? One person must give way to the other - unless of course you send the kids in for half a day in protest.
Perhaps the fact that children are legally required to be in school should have swung the decision?

As to whether there should be a united public front, ideally yes. In the case of the school, they are dealing with the consequences of the children being absent, not the reason for them being absent. You both share responsibility for them being absent - equally.

UQD, if B purposefully contacted Head, then no, makes no difference.

But if B was caught out at the school gate I would have more sympathy as pretty hard to back up A off-the-cuff when he/she disagreed in the first place ...

"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"

My view? A was wrong in the first place to keep the children off school. A was wrong towards the children.

B however was wrong to A.

Which is worse?

If you are B UQD I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

I think B has the right to defend but not the right to blame

swedes - that was one compromise solution suggested and rejected.

Interesting that if it had come down to a legal question we'd both have been legally "responsible".

blimey, tricky.
if cornered by the head and under pressure then probably more understandable.
but "sir, sir, it was him (or her)" isn't great practice, no.
I don't think anyone covered themselves in glory tbh
I am as SWP as the next dewy eyed liberal but if the teachers don't want or choose to strike then that's fair enough.
if B felt the teachers were pressured not to work, then that is another matter.

God UQD, just tell us what actually happened...

Interesting, isn't it?

has your DH/DP/DW ever done something that would affect both of you legally and which you wished to have no part of?... very difficult to want to have collective responsibility.

btw, I don't think that keeping a child off school for one day for a political reason is the end of the world, tbh.
the children have learned about matters of principle
better (or no worse) than taking a day off for a birthday or whatever.

No it's not.
I'm taking mine out for two weeks in a month.

harpsi - I think A felt the teachers were pressured not to strike.

Is this irrelevant though? The school was open. For whatever reason.

Its a bit like the ref's decision in football. You can think its wrong, but you must accept it.