Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should parents be fined for taking kids on holiday? Watch

  • View Poll Results: : Should Parents be fined?
    Yes
    31.25%
    No
    68.75%

    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megaman70)
    I have a Law degree
    This means i understand how the law itself works, and know a bit about the law in various areas.

    What you have described is a number of practical problems which could be caused.
    This is not how the law works at all and discussions about law cannot be held by virtue of such reasoning.

    The inverse of the things you have said are that if a parent is given control of his child, or is aloud to kidnap his child. Then the parents of a 17 year old could take that 17 year old old of the country by any amount of force necessary. Clearly this would be equally as absurd as your example involving babies - potentially more so because a 17 year ols is far more likely to be able to enforce legal action.
    A child under the age of, what? 10? Will go where he's told. After that age they would start to resist more, but until they reach 14 (or something like that) they are unlikely to be able to change the parents mind.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megaman70)
    There is no such thing of custody of a child in England.
    In divorce cases you have residence orders and visitation orders.

    Residence means the child lives with you.
    Visitation does what the name implies and is for the parent who the child does not live with.
    Highly fascinating as I'm sure it is to hairsplit over the precise meanings of words in general conversation I note r the Child abduction act (1984) says

    (3)In this section ’the appropriate consent’, in relation to a child, means—

    (a)the consent of each of the following—

    (i)The child’s mother;

    (ii)the child’s father, if he has parental responsibility for him;

    (iii)any guardian of the child;

    (iv)any person in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child;

    (v)any person who has custody of the child; or

    (b)the leave of the court granted under or by virtue of any provision of Part II of the Children Act 1989; or

    (c)if any person has custody of the child, the leave of the court which awarded custody to him.
    (my emphasis)

    apart from hairsplitting over the meaning one word, child abduction as understood by the law is clearly a different thing to taking a child on a holiday during term time against that child's will.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    A child under the age of, what? 10? Will go where he's told. After that age they would start to resist more, but until they reach 14 (or something like that) they are unlikely to be able to change the parents mind.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why would he need to be able to change the parents mind?
    I could not always change my parents mind when i was 10 or 15

    This did not matter because I simply ignored them if i wished.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Highly fascinating as I'm sure it is to hairsplit over the precise meanings of words in general conversation I note r the Child abduction act (1984) says


    (my emphasis)

    apart from hairsplitting over the meaning one word, child abduction as understood by the law is clearly a different thing to taking a child on a holiday during term time against that child's will.
    The child abduction act was written in 1984.

    Since then the concept of "custody of a child" has been replaced by "parental responsibility" by the children act 1989.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2

    Also
    Schedule 13 of the children act 1989 updates many other acts by replacing references such as "has custody" with "has responsibility for".
    So it seams that parliaments intent was to abolish the concept of child custody from English law, why did they not just repeal the previous law which created child custody - well it may simply be that there was not a specific law which created it so removing all references which they could think of was the only viable way.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/schedule/13

    Also
    The sole purpose of the child abduction act is to define the offence of child abduction (as its own offence)
    Use of phrases such as "Custody" do not literally mean that one person has custody over another. The child abduction act makes reference to a person who is entitled to control over a child. However there is no act in English law which gives a person a right to control a child and indeed the courts have rejected such an argument many times.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megaman70)
    Why would he need to be able to change the parents mind?
    I could not always change my parents mind when i was 10 or 15

    This did not matter because I simply ignored them if i wished.
    It generally doesn't work like that for holidays - if your parents say you're off on holiday, then you're off on holiday.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    It generally doesn't work like that for holidays - if your parents say you're off on holiday, then you're off on holiday.
    Perhaps that is because in most situations no kid in his right mind would choose not to have a holiday.

    However if its a 14 year old who's teachers are concerned about the effect it will have on his GCSE's - Who has been told that he should refuse to go on holiday. Then there is a very real possibility that he will refuse a holliday outright.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megaman70)
    Perhaps that is because in most situations no kid in his right mind would choose not to have a holiday.

    However if its a 14 year old who's teachers are concerned about the effect it will have on his GCSE's - Who has been told that he should refuse to go on holiday. Then there is a very real possibility that he will refuse a holliday outright.
    I know plenty of friends who didn't want to go on holiday with their family as teenagers (for non academic reasons). However, few of them were successful in persuading their parents to leave them at home alone... Surprisingly if their parents said no they went, without their parents having to physically force them, blackmail then or anything else illegal... Who would've thought?!

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by megaman70)
    Perhaps that is because in most situations no kid in his right mind would choose not to have a holiday.

    However if its a 14 year old who's teachers are concerned about the effect it will have on his GCSE's - Who has been told that he should refuse to go on holiday. Then there is a very real possibility that he will refuse a holliday outright.
    I'm on about even when they refuse - I did

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it depends on the situation. Obviously, someone taking a six week holiday in term time or something equally ridiculous should not be allowed. However, if it's only a few days, or if the trip is a visit-a-sick-relative/last-chance-of-happy-memories-with-terminal-parent, or something like that, I don't think they should be fined. There was a story about a kid not being allowed a few days off to go to his parents' wedding which I thought was particularly harsh (the parents had conflicting shifts and there was literally no day in the entire summer holidays to hold it, so it was in term time).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarrietGilbraith)
    I think it depends on the situation. Obviously, someone taking a six week holiday in term time or something equally ridiculous should not be allowed. However, if it's only a few days, or if the trip is a visit-a-sick-relative/last-chance-of-happy-memories-with-terminal-parent, or something like that, I don't think they should be fined. There was a story about a kid not being allowed a few days off to go to his parents' wedding which I thought was particularly harsh (the parents had conflicting shifts and there was literally no day in the entire summer holidays to hold it, so it was in term time).
    Yeah, there was a story recently about a kid not being allowed an end of year treat because she had had a day off for attending her mother's funeral.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alumna)
    parents can be fined for taking their kids time of school to go on holiday.
    yes or no ?

    why
    No fines under normal circumstances. Parents should be able to take their child out of school for a limited number of days a year for reasons such as holidays, weddings and other special occasions that would benefit the child. The school should be notified in advanced.

    But the way things are going is totally ridiculous. I personally would take my child out of school if I deemed it appropriate. Education is massively important, but schools and the state should never prevent a child from experiences they may not otherwise be able to have.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Holidays and family occasions are completely different circumstances. For a family occasion or bereavement then a fine should not be applicable. For taking a child out for more than a week from school then they should potentially be fined.

    The cost of holidays is always brought up as a reason. Staggered holidays may be a solution.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roving Fish)
    The cost of holidays is always brought up as a reason. Staggered holidays may be a solution.
    The reason being that August holidays are astronomically priced compared with the last few weeks in June/start of July.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roving Fish)
    The cost of holidays is always brought up as a reason. Staggered holidays may be a solution.
    If parents have 2 kids at different schools, and the holidays don't match up, then there's no holiday or a fine either way. It could be made less likely, by staggering holidays by county, but there'll most likely be some problematic cases.

    Also, staggered holidays will just result in holiday companies putting prices to a maximum across the entire holiday period.

    Finally, having schools start their school year at different times could be problematic for children born in July, August or possibly September
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Staggered holidays would be too problematic - but it's a nice idea in theory.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.