Ex changed preferences for school choice

[PrimarilyParented]

I have name changed for this so it can’t be linked to my other posts.

my DP and ex agreed on the school choice order for his youngest child. After the cutoff date his ex changed this order and the child has now been awarded a place at a school dp was happy to be second choice but is definitely not the better school and it means the child is at a different school to his siblings and there are now 3 different school drop offs to be made each day.

we know this was changed after the cutoff date as the ex told him she’d done it when she changed her mind and he contacted the LA to say he didn’t consent. They replied saying nothing would be changed unless there were exceptional circumstances as it was after the cut off and so he wasn’t worried. The LA’s guidance is clear that they won’t change the order of preference without good reason after January 15th and will require proof of this reason. There was no good reason (ex just stated she had changed her mind and they accepted this sometime in February).

Does anyone know if my DP has a case for an appeal based on the fact that the LA did not follow their own rules and changed the order of preference with no valid reason or proof required?

@ChoiceMummy residency is 50:50 and my partner does all school runs, doctors, dentists, clubs etc. so this is not a case of a non-resident parent who barely does anything objecting. He foolishly trusted his ex to do the application after numerous emails in which they agreed the order (without argument). She literally, out of the blue, changed her mind and called admissions after the deadline to change it and, against their own policy, they allowed her to do so. It’s mind-boggling to me and my dp ought to have a right to appeal against this.

Unfortunately that's exactly how the issues started for us that are now a as severe as they are.

They should not because it clearly relates to mum. It is her reason for changing the order of preferences, not the child's. However you cut it, this is clearly mum's personal data. Releasing it would potentially be a breach of GDPR.

Who claims the child benefit? If the ex, then yes she's legally viewed as the resident parent and she's not done anything "wrong".

As I said earlier, you cannot appeal as application that you didn't apply for.

You cannot start to moan about the policy etc as it's nothing to do with you/your partner.

And again via courts, they're going to say you agreed to the schools albeit in a different order, but that was always down to her overall decision how they were ordered.

I'm afraid this is wrong from beginning to end.

As the OP's partner has PR, he is entitled to a say in the child's education. The person claiming child benefit doesn't have any additional rights.

The OP's partner is the child's parent so absolutely has the right to appeal irrespective of the fact that his ex submitted the application.

And the courts would not say it was up to the mother how to order the preferences. The courts would say that she should have stuck to the agreed order.

@prh47bridge Thankyou, child benefit only determines the address for admissions, not who is the only parent allowed a say in school choice.

the fact my dp accepted this school as a backup does not mean it’s ok as he only agreed to that because he knew his son was practically guaranteed a place at the first choice school due to sibling connection. If the LA didn’t follow their policy (which we’re sure they didn’t) then this should be overturned.

@HappilyHadesBound did you have any luck resolving the situation or did you have to stick to the other parents preferences.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.

Child benefit is taken as being paid to the resident parent/primary caregiver. This obviously has not been disputed. So the ex is the pcg/rp.

Given that, she's done as is legally required, discussed the father's wishes re schools. They don't have to agree on it. That simple.

She's done nothing wrong legally. She's exercised her legal rights regarding applying. Whatever her motivations. She may well have felt bullied into doing what the op's partner says, because let's face it the whole tone is about challenging and proving their point with absolutely no recognition that even if the LA had bent their own policy it matters not one jot to this situation as the mother was the applicant not the father.

He agreed to his second choice being appropriate for the child's needs.

This is just that it doesn't suit his plans to ferry around the op's child and the 2 from the previous relationship to and from school. That's parenting. And luckily the op can also help there too!

And as I said, yes he could go to court. They cannot force a move when there's quite obviously no educational need such as ehcp stating that school meets their needs. Being awkward for drop off is irrelevant and would be wasting the court's time.

Energies being ploughed into making this would be more productive.

This is just that it doesn't suit his plans to ferry around the op's child and the 2 from the previous relationship

The OP doesn't mention having a child of her own? I think you're putting your own feelings into your replies somewhat.

I am not mistaken. If you look at where I post (less easy now Mumsnet has removed Advanced Search but, apart from the Education boards, you will mainly find me on Legal Matters advising people about family law) and what people say about me, you might realise that I know the relevant law inside out.

Being the resident parent and receiving child benefit does NOT give you the right to make unilateral decisions about your child. Being the parent the child lives with does not give the parent any additional rights. If both parents have PR, both are equal in the eyes of the law.

Simply discussing the father's wishes is not enough. She has indeed acted incorrectly as far as the courts are concerned. If the father hadn't cared, she could have done whatever she wanted. As the father cared and they reached an agreement, she was required to stick to that agreement or get a court order. If they had not been able to reach an agreement, she should have applied to the courts for a Specific Issue Order, not acted unilaterally. The courts would not be at all happy with her subverting their agreement in this way. You are disagreeing with the law.

If the OP's partner took her to court over a matter concerning this child and he raised this, she would be hauled over the coals for not sticking to the agreement and it would make her look unreasonable, which would not help her position. However, if he wants to get a place for his child at the correct school, he would take against the LA, not the mother. Contrary to your post, if the courts found that the LA has broken its own admission arrangements and allowed the mother to change preferences after the deadline without good reason, the courts can and will force a move to the school that would have been allocated if the LA had acted correctly. However, an appeal panel should also do that without any costs involved and would be quicker.

@ChoiceMummy seriously @prh47bridge knows their stuff - a long term regular poster who (alongside other posters with considerable expertise relating to appeals - including longstanding appeal panel members ) regularly gives sound advice on these boards regarding appeals and wider informed legal knowledge over on those boards

Yes, they can piss the courts off going for a SIO, that if there isn't space anyway at the father's first choice, will make the process irrelevant.

We have not heard why the mother as to her reasons. As I said it could have been due to bullying and feeling manipulated I having to do what the father says and then afterwards had the strength to do what she believes is right for the children and not necessarily most convenient for the father.

If the father was so concerned then he should have applied himself! Given that we're supposed to believe that he's the most hands on of the parents surely?

They agreed on schools to apply for. Yes they both have PR and the responsibility for ensuring their child is educated. That doesn't mean they have to agree on the establishment. Nor the order for preference.

His preference for the school based on his convenience is not a reason to usurp the mother's choice of school.

This sounds like a case of he who shouts loudest.

I feel so sorry for the mother, with this 2 ganging up on her and trying to manipulate the LA as being at fault too.

Cant add anything to what ph47 says because they are an expert in this area.

But I am shocked there is a poster suggesting that the mum has done nothing wrong and feeling sorry for the latent doing the schools runs having no say in how and which school!

I guess the answer here would be to follow all ph advice and in the meantime get DP to ask his ex to do one of the school runs due to logistics. If it needs to go to court it'll be helpful for him to have written evidence from her that she is unwilling to facilitate her change of choice (if she does indeed refuse)

Whatever her reason, it was wrong to make a change without informing those who have PR.

The LA were informed that the change did not have to consent of all those with PR, so they should not have actioned it. Indeed they said (got it in writing?) that they would not. But then they did it anyway and that error might have cost the DC an offer from the school which was the original mutually agreed first choice.

The courts prefer parents to sort things out between them, but SIOs for school admissions do happen. In this case, if they had gone with the father's preferred order (which was originally agreed by the mother), it seems likely that the child would have got a place at the first preference on sibling priority.

If the mother wasn't happy with the agreed order, she should have applied to the courts for an SIO. That is what the courts expect parents to do regardless of any allegations of bullying and manipulation (for which you have no evidence and which are, in any case, irrelevant since what matters is the child's best interests).

The father had no opportunity to apply for an SIO himself. The parents agreed the order of preferences so, since the courts operate on a no order principle, he could not have got an SIO at that stage. When the father discovered that the mother had changed the order it was after January 15th, so there was nothing effective the court could do about it. They could order the mother to change the order back again, but there would be no guarantee that the LA would accept the change.

They both have PR. That means both opinions carry equal weight. However much you say otherwise, they do have to agree on the establishment and the order of preference. If they cannot agree, they must get an SIO. When both parents have PR, there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for one parent to impose their view regarding school preferences on the other. That is the law. The courts have been very clear on the subject.

The mother's preference, whatever it was based on, is not a reason to usurp the father's choice of school.

You are projecting and inventing facts to suit your narrative.

The LA may be at fault. That is not manipulation. They clearly state that preferences cannot be changed after January 15th unless there is a good reason. Simply changing your mind is not a good reason. If that is the reason the LA allowed the mother to change the preferences, they got it wrong and their decision should be overturned by an appeal panel.

I suspect your posts would be very different if the father had changed the order of preferences without the mother's consent.

Thankyou to all the supportive posters.

to clarify a few things:
my partner currently does multiple school runs and this isn’t his reason for objecting to the second place school, though it clearly adds unnecessary complexity to the school run and means one of the children will have to attend wraparound care (you can’t be at two schools at once). I can assure you if he genuinely believed the second choice was better he would do multiple school runs. As it is, the second choice is rated lower by Ofsted whereas their first choice is outstanding and since his older child attends the first choice and is doing very well thanks in part to lots of support that they offer, he was always keen for his younger child to attend. He honestly believes his child has been educationally disadvantaged by not being given a place at their first choice and would have sought court intervention to prevent the change in preference if he had not been wrongly told by the LA (in writing) that preference could not be changed for no good reason. He does not want to have to take it to court and is hoping the appeals panel will see fit to overturn the change in preference, as it is not about him but about his child.

@PrimarilyParented You mentioned earlier that the other children who attend the 1st choice school are full siblings. You also mentioned the children reside 50/50 at each parents house.

So, with that in mind then the ex (the mum) is going to be inconvenienced with two separate school drop off pick ups at least half the time too.

It doesn’t make sense that she would inconvenience herself like this for no good reason.

There must be more to this, there must be a reason. Forgive me if I am wrong in this but I find it hard to believe that the LA broke their own rules or breached their policy for this one parent, your dp’s ex. Why would they?

Do yourself a favour and try not to get drawn in to your dp’s disagreements with his ex over their parenting etc. It’s not healthy for you. Build healthy boundaries, empathise with your dp but don’t get involved in his disputes.

Believe me, you are better off taking a step back and communicating with your partner that his co parenting relationship is between him and his ex and you will not get involved.

@ImustLearn2Cook Thankyou for your advice. I try, but I also care about my step children as well as my dp and ultimately it is him who is being bullied by his ex. I have not expended all of my energy on this but am a regular mumsnetter and wanted to receive some advice to help him as he is upset and didn’t know where to start.

The ex has already started to make clear she wants the older child to move to this school too, so obviously her long term plan is not to be inconvenienced by multiple school runs.

It's quite simple, the LA do not need to have the consent of all parents with PR.

A parent can go to courts for a SIO before the application. That then alleviates these issues.

No whether the mother was just gung-ho or whether she had genuine reasons, such as manipulation, which would not have been shared within this post, is irrelevant if the father had such issues with which school then he should have got a sip or applied himself.

And ofsted is the stick you measure a school by?

Has your oh actually looked at what support they may offer? Spoken with their SENCo? Or just made assumptions based on their easier school run?

@ChoiceMummy it is not purely based on ofsted but years of having his children attend this school, knowing the staff and SEN provision. I appreciate that you assume my dp is just doing this to annoy his ex or out of laziness, but that could not be further from the truth.

Can I just add to those say the RP/CB recipient gets more say are wrong.

My DD is Year 3 now but we were going through court for a CAO during applications.

The judge specifically asked both of us which school we wanted for DD, and he chose the order I applied in (and checked!), he chose to put my preference first because DD lived with me 90% of the time when the CAO was made, but I still had to put 2 of ExHs preferences on the form, one in second and one in fourth place.

We got the first preference school but ExH did get a say. And there's a clause in the order that states all school choices have to be discussed between us and taken back to court if we cannot reach an agreement.

Still wrong, I'm afraid. A parent can only go to court if there is a disagreement. If they are in agreement, as was the case here at the time the application was submitted, the courts will refuse to make an order. That is the "no order" principle in operation. And most LAs require the parent with care to apply. So no, the father could not have got an SIO or applied himself.

@prh47bridge thanks again for your advice. If for some reason the appeal fails, would my dp be able to get a SIO to apply to transfer his child to the originally agreed upon choice and/or being placed on the waiting list for it?