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?

I disagree with quite a few posters here ... I think this is not something that you can just push under the carpet. It absolutely does matter. I'm not talking about the teacher's strike and who was right or wrong in that regard - that is ultimately irrelevant. The fact was that DW and DH disagreed on something and both had very strong feelings about it. School attendance is important and a legal obligation. Unless DH is prepared to compromise with DW's views on keeping the kids at home, they should go to school. DW should never have overriden DH on this. By deliberately doing this DW is way out of line and I can sympathise wholeheartedly with DH's sense of powerlessness. She undermined him and showed a massive lack of respect. All very big issues in a marriage. I think as a couple you do have to come to some sort of consensus on how you are going to deal with this sort of thing.

I also agree with FallenMadonna tho that you need to apologise for what you did wrong. Perhaps a good starting block for The Big Conversation?

And in very point - she took the legal rap.

But Bink - and Swede pls correct me if I'm wrong - I am not sure Swede was advocating that as a recipe to marital bliss. She had to step up because ex-DH went abroad and left her to sort it all out and I think she talked about it being so awful that she felt physically sick ... I can't imagine Swede saying to the Council people yeah I wanted those trees down and totally supported DH's actions (although maybe I am wrong). In my book Swede's DH and UQD's DW have behaved really badly.

Yes, indeed Swedes had a horrible experience - but the point is (if I read her story correctly) she did not choose the option of passing the buck. She accepted that the problem had happened and she stepped up and dealt with it.

It wasn't entirely because he went abroad that I stepped up to sort it out. It was because I was married to him. He had got us into a fix and I was better equipped to resolve the matter. He would have refused to write the creepy letter of apology and offer of reparation that I ashamedly did. I never mentioned our disharmony to the people from the Council planning dept or the parish councillor who dobbed us in. But I can't say I never mentioned it again to my ex husband. Two glasses of red wine and the dossier came out, trees was article 17.6 a).

PMSL

Always good to keep a tally Swedes

Now you've made it clearer, UQD (that A and B - confusing!), I say that your dw was wrong and you were in the tricky position.

I don't think you were in the wrong for telling the head. Dw's decision, dw should accept the slap on the wrist without expecting you to as well.

You did your bit in keeping to her wishes. You should not have to feel the same way as her or pretend that you do.

I think you should step away from the idea of one person being blameworthy and that person taking the rap. This is your children's school. I think it's much more important that you decide which one of you is better equipped to diffuse this situation at the forthcoming meeting. I suspect it might be UQD.

We haven't got a forthcoming meeting, though...

Phew

Generally back them up. But in the case of going to school I would side with B.

This thread actually worries me as I have visions of dh and I having similar conflicts in the future. I am much more of a pragmatist than dh but I am also more politically motivated and could well make a decision affecting the family on a principle that dh is not committed too...

DH is very firm on presenting a united front though - whereas I am very bad at hiding my true emotions so am wont to make an obvious 'Doh!' face or wince if he makes a statement I don't agree with - that pisses him off no end! Happened at the dinner table this week - I had told him about ds running off when I was shopping dh started telling ds that he didn't want 'a bad man to take ds away' so ds should stay with mummy - I could not hide my discomfort - so dh majorly went into one

it is not easy always to be a united front but it should be the goal - certainly for figures of authority such as Heads.

Message withdrawn

No. often disagree with DH in public and in front of the children. He is sometimes unfair and I say so. Healthy debate, I want my Dc to think that it's okay to disagree on things and talk it over.

oops - I know, but this is the first time I can remember when one of us has expressly went against something the other had repeatedly and vociferously expressed total and utter disapproval for.

That's a bit different from saying someone has a headache rather than "he didn't want to come because you're boring farts".

I want to say I have forgiven her for it, but forgiveness requires:

a) person concerned being genuinely contrite

and

b) person concerned being 100% committed not to do it again.

Neither variable is in evidence.

has WENT? wot has happened to my grammar?

has GONE, obviously...

I'm a bit at your glossing of forgiveness - that it requires the forgivee to meet certain conditions - etc.

I had always thought the whole deal with forgiveness is that you do it despite, notwithstanding, even in the teeth of (depending how good a person you are), the other person's unworthiness. (As in "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us" - ie we choose to forgive the person who barged us on the Tube (who has not a glimmering of remorse, & will do it every day of their lives) in hopes that we might be forgiven bigger stuff, however undeserving we are. I offer this not as a theological argument, but just a semantic one - the words don't make sense otherwise.) Anyway. Each to their own.

Really, Bink? How do you ensure you distinguish, in that case, between forgiveness and simply letting someone get away with something?

The ironic thing is that tomorrow the school is closed for the local elections. So I have to find something to do with them.

Well - I guess maybe I don't distinguish - I haven't got a very retentive mind anyway so I'm totally useless at (eg) grudge-holding, I always completely forget. So probably people get away with loads of stuff as far as I'm concerned - but so long as (and this is the crux, isn't it?) they're not in a position to actually take advantage of me, then I think life's too short.

But it is possible you are being taken advantage of here, I do appreciate that. I still think you should invite the attendance officer round & let A (NOT you!) have a nice old ideological set-to with them. They'd probably both enjoy it.

I've read, gone away and come back to this thread, and 24 hours later I'm still with UQD on this, much as I would try to present a united front with DH.

I agree that you need to find a way to move on somehow UQD.

I don't think it's really about forgiveness or letting someone get away with something. A truth has come out about how each of you feel about school attendance/strikes. On this issue you each have strong and different opinions. You now know something about eachother which couldn't have come out any other way.

There will be other issues. It needn't be a power struggle. Each of us needs to be a parent in case anything happened to the other. For us that is the bottom line. Learning how to handle each of these hard conflicts is more important maybe than the actual issue at hand.

My son was raging last night with a horrendous battle with his brother, wallpaper damaged...My husband dealt with it in his way, I did it differently. In the morning I phoned his office and left a message to see if he was ok and to say that we all handled it well, in our different ways.

Good luck, finding a way forward can be the hardest thing.

Surely forgiveness involves not holding grudges. You don't forgive because someone admits they did something wrong and promises never to do it again. That's not forgiveness.

Still think you need to let go of it. This is something that only has to be as big as you make it. You're losing a sense of proportion on it I think.

rebelbang - I know... am trying...

By the way - new info. It's transpired that she consulted the union rep over this action and he said it was fine I think this is appalling - I'm considering reporting him. I find it unbelievable that the union as a body would sanction truancy to make a point.

What I think happened here is that I was bullied. I find this astonishing, as DW was hersef the victim of workplace bullying last year, and I thought she'd be the last person to use such tactics. If there had been more consultation - rather than "this is what I'm doing, like it or lump it" - then I might well have been more prepared to present a united front over something I wasn't 100% happy with.

Nope- you've lost all proportion on this. (and I was with you at the beginning).

Can't you see that it doesn't actually matter what's been done? It's been done. You don't need to try and force out apologies. It's a political stance - she's not going to change her mind and suddenly say she was wrong.

Question is how you're going to move on from it.

This does not need to be a huge marriage breaker. You're building it up into something ridiculously OTT.

I'd really advise you not to report the union rep.