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?

moondog - yes but presumably you have the head's authorisation for this?

sorry I meant pressured to go into work
I am distracted by looking after three children
yes I think that would be relevant, because one would be supporting the teachers and their right to strike.
that might be a substantial reason.
if one was that way inclined

The NUT rep voted not to strike... I think the other NUT members may have been swung by this...

I dunno yet if i do, but I'm having it.
It's the only time my dh (in Bangladesh) can take time off for us to go and see my sister and family in Caribbean.

I am uber middle class mum though-work with them every damned day of my life.

I think A has the right to feel bad that the teachers were threatened not to strike and should apply to be a governor or write to the union if A feels strongly

I dont think unless A encouraged enough people not to allow their children into school and it was the parents collective response to the head forcing teachers not to strike that keeping the off would make much difference

what will you do if they strike again ?

You'll get it, moondog. Can't see any reason for you not to.

very good question, peanut... One which has not yet been successfully addressed.

Your view is valid UQD, your actions are not. Can you not see the difference?

I think marriage means you support your dh/dw in public even if you think they're wrong.

And we have done.

So which one are you? A or B?

Think B's behaviour is indefensible unless s/he was truly caught out and not quite thinking when s/he replied. To me there are worse things than the kids missing school for a day which is what happened. Mountain out of a molehill.

UQD Years and years ago we lived in a Listed Grade II house in a conservation area. We were having some work done on the garden and wanted to get rid of 5 Leylandi trees. I told Ex Husband we needed permission and insisted we got permission exH thought we should go ahead as the workmen were on site doing other things (for which I had sought and gained permission). I went out shopping, insisting that he did not give the men permission to take out the trees. I return from shopping to find trees cut down and a message on the answerphone from the Council's planning department to say she was on her way and to stop work on the trees immediately. Roll on two weeks and ex husband is back working abroad and I have Mr Jobsworth and his assistant Mrs Jobsworth-Trainee in my kitchen reading me a caution over tea and home made cake.

I managed (after various meetings and letters to and fro) to satsify the council by replacing the 5 Leylandi with 5 year old deciduous trees (at huge expense) so I didn't have to go to court. Ex husband thought it was quite amusing but actually it was very stressful and unpleasant.

What a very good case in point Swedes! - poor you.

Did you manage it all with gritted teeth & no finger-pointing?

Not sure it is as simple as just missing a day out of school tho is it, Tharsheblows?

Quite a few principles underly this ...

I would be LIVID if DH overruled me and used our children to make a political point against my wishes. Very, very hard if you don't agree on things like this as a couple but I would work on the assumption that - on things like school attendance - the default position is that kids go to school unless you can agree otherwise.

Really Cammelia? I really don't view (my) marriage in that way.

Bink - Thank you. Funny but it has actually made me feel physically sick remembering it all.

Yes ,really, Mercy

but with me having the final say over anything to do with dd obv

Swedes I'm surprised about the leylandii. Quite often councils are having to insist they are cut right down as they grow so tall blocking out neighbours light. They are also notoriously unstable. We had 3 which became dangerous due to very high winds and sodden ground. We got them cut down immediately before they killed someone and we live in a conservation area.

Everyone has made some very good points.

I think Sobernow makes an excellent point which I wish I had used - the one about the support being requested, not imposed. The teachers chose to be at work, the school was open, the children were required to be at school.

I'm B - so shoot me.

So the consensus is that I did something wrong. And yet it wouldn't have been done without the "other thing" - it wasn't done in isolation. Two wrongs don't make a right, but one can trigger another.

Various compromises were requested and rejected. She said "I'm not picketing the school - that's my compromise."

This is an interesting justification for doing something wrong: the "I didn't do something worse" defence. (I'll have to remember that one. "Oh, I snogged another woman, by the way, but don't worry, I compromised - I didn't shag her.")

I had no control over something my children were (not) doing and which I disapproved of. This made me livid. I think what happened was that I felt so angry and powerless that I had to do something. (This may be a male thing - we want to ACT.)

I couldn't control the situation I wanted to control, so I controlled another.

Suitably self-analysed?

Dearie me UQD. Your fourth para rather boils down to "SEE what she made me do".

Grown-ups have the option not to be 'triggered'. Just accept you made a judgement error, independently from any errors of judgement your wife made - and move on.

But as various people have said, I was put in an untenable position.

Who can say for sure how they would have reacted in similar circumstances?

Well of course no-one can say in advance.

But when they realise they've been silly (which is all you've been, really - this should blow over in no time) they can at least cheerily kick themselves - & just themselves - without getting in a bit of (yet again, ahem?) finger-pointing.

well, I shall have to cut and paste "Grown-ups have the option not to be triggered" as the response to the vast majority of threads in AIBU and Relationships...

I'm not sure why you went to the Head though. I would have been absolutely boiling mad at DH, but why involve the third person? Who I think probably does feel pretty uncomfortable about it.

Are you and DW speaking?

I have to admit that if I had been put in that position I doubt very much whether I would have been able to hold the proverbial line. To have to justify your partner's actions when you expressly disagreed with them is a situation you shouldn't be put in. Think you need to have a long hard chat with your wife re how you are going to deal with these kinds of decisions going forward ....

Cammelia - Yes, I imagine the vast majority of court cases involve the compulsory cutting of overly high leylandii. However you need permission to fell or even prune any tree in a conservation area and I suspect they don't distinguish between species because it's open to abuse. Oh I thought that oak was a leylandii, silly me.

So how and why did you approach the head, UQD?
Was it just a way of lashing out at the missus?

Your self-analysis seems spot on.
Not sure whether it applies to all males
but your points about control and wanting to act
certainly struck a chord with me.

If you had started this thread before going to the head
do you think it would have made a difference?