mum fined by stockport magistrates

[dotty.]

the husband of the woman who has been fined for taking her 13 year old out of school without permission to give her away at her wedding in st lucia, just said on tv that there were 'inconsistencies' in the school's policy, what did he mean?
http://menmedia.co.uk...-fined-by-magistrates

[jackthehat]

Apparently, the mother has familial links to St. Lucia.

She had been trying to negotiate with the school for 12 months or so to settle the matter as to whether he would be granted permission. It was only very shortly before the event that she was told that permission had been denied.

[jno]

something about emails not being answered, wasn't it? If that's the case she should argue it in court (or has the case already been dealt with?) As a school head I'd object to a pupil vanishing for a fortnight, but common sense would suggest that I say so immediately, not wait till the last minute.

[ummmm]

Child endangerment, Dot? Do you think they might not have any family or friends that didn't go?

[jno]

I suppose you'd have to deliberately not invite Aunty Doris, then ask her to look after the kids

[ummmm]

I'd say not all of them could afford it.

[factor-fiction]

It's better to get permission before you book anything isn't it. Sending an email asking for time off isn't the same as getting permission. There are ways to chase things up. I'm not convinced by the family's version of events anyway- sounds a bit woolly to me

[bednobs]

i agree. If you sent an email to which you never received a reply for a year, perhaps chase it up??

[andy-hughes]

If I was booking a wedding, I would make sure I had my child's school's permission for his absence. If I did not receive a response, i would make an appointment to see the Head Teacher to discuss the issue in advance.

This parent was denied permission - and i draw attention to my previous post advising that schools do not routinely fine parents, there is usually a history involved.

She would have been beeter to pau the fine and smile, instead of trying to take a moral stand where clearly none is available to her.

Absence policies are applied on an individual case-by-case basis, and the school would not discuss other cases with this parent, or any other.

She was wrong, she got caught, she decided to make a stand - she lost - a lesson (pardon the pun!0 to be learned.

[Barmaid]

I don't think the whole story has been set out.

It says she appeared at Court and was fined £100 with £165 costs but also that she was fined in July £50. There is slightly more to this than meets the eye. There would not be 2 fines over one offence.

And despite what she says s444 Education Act 1996 is perfectly clear. If your child doesn't attend school and the absence is unauthorised it is an offence.

[andy-hughes]

Barmaid

the second fine results from a prosecution brought as a result of failure to pay the first fine - hence they are not for the same offence -

Fine 1 - non-attendence
Fine 2 - non-payment of the fine for non-attendence.

[Barmaid]

Serves me right for just skim reading the article then AH! I read it as if this was the prosecution under s444.

[andy-hughes]

Easily done barmaid - I have just replied to a thread in Religion completely opposite to the point i wanted to make, because i read the previous comment to quickly and got it the wrong way round!

[ludwig]

The stuff about emails not being answered is nonsense. They could have picked up the phone well in advance. If you're not getting the information you need, you do something about it. Fact is they'd already decided he was going.

They should now pay whatever they owe, shut up, and move on.

[andy-hughes]

I agree ludwig - most parents have access to the school HT by means of an appointment.

It does appear that the parents did not make vigourous pursuit of their request because they knew what the response would be - and that could be based on their history, as i mentioned in my original response to this on another thread.

This woman would have been better accepting that £50 was an acceptable fee for getting her arrangements as she wished, and left it at that.

Chasing a moral point when you are morally at fault is foolish - and it seems, expensive.

[New Judge]

The facts of the matter were not disputed in court as Mrs Harding pleaded guilty. As I suggested in one of my responses to an earlier question, she had little option:

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1178118.html

She seems to have made a great play (at least in what she has said outside court) of inconsistencies exhibited by the school. These may well exist, but this would not be a consideration for the court. In fact she escaped extremely lightly. It seems she was charged under the less serious Section 444(1) of the 1996 Education Act which carries a maximum penalty of a £1,000 fine. In my view she could have been charged under Section 444 (1A) which carries a maximum sentence of three month's custody. The criterion for the more serious offence is "...colluding in and condoning non-attendance or deliberately instigating non-attendance ". Mrs Harding most certainly did both of those.

Those who suggest that this sort of thing was not what Parliament had in mind when passing the legislation are mistaken. The Act was introduced precisely to tackle the problem of parents not ensuring their children's attendance. Taking the child away on holiday during term time is the surest way of all to ensure non-attendance.

Mrs Harding was foolish and inconsiderate in her actions. She was foolish in planning her wedding in term time; foolish in not ensuring she had permission for her son's absence before making arrangements; foolish in not paying the £50 fixed penalty when it was first offered. But most of all she was inconsiderate in putting her wedding before her son's education. She was also inconsiderate towards other pupils in her son's class and towards the school and the staff who have to sort out the mess left by parents deciding when their children will and will not attend school.

[askyourgran]

I have admittedly (skim) read this, and the inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the younger son has been allowed leave of absence from school
but the older child is not. I would have thought they would have allowed him to join his family to go. We don't know the school's reasons apart from upholding the law in these matters. Has he a bad attendence record or class disruption, is he slow to learn? Or are the school just obdurate, it is after all a special occasion for the family and travel costs for holidays during school holidays are ridiculous.

[sherrardk]

Different schools, different head teachers, different approaches. If any of our children have an attendance rate of 90% or less then they would be automatically denied permission for a term time holiday.

[sherrardk]

PS - himself was talking to a head teacher about this and the head said that in practice it is based on the attendance of all of the pupils as the school is viewed in a poor light by the LEA if its overall attendance is below a certain figure.

[factor-fiction]

If you choose a school for your children you should be prepared to work within its rules and standards. Some schools ares tricter than others.
There seem some inconsistencies to me in the Mum's arguments- they booked it before getting permission, they said they thought it would be the school holidays (so why send an email).
They should have accepted the fine and put it behind them