Why Should This Father Pay?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070398/Estranged-father-banned-seeing-children-prosecuted-mother-took-holiday-term-time.html

[petal54]

does seem a little weird

[baza]

Whole thing seems strange, she has a 10 year old and she is 24, both are being kept by the state, or you and me, and some daft judge comes out with this verdict.

[bednobs]

it seems ridiculous, i guess that's the law though

[hc4361]

I wonder if he was prosecuted for having sex with a 14 year old when he was 34?

[Mamyalynne]

I can only presume the School has him down as a Parent with responsibilities - sadly if he is now estranged from those children he needs to get them to remove his name from their records.

[Mamyalynne]

hc, I think you would have to search court records for that info - doubt it was seen as relevant to this case.

[Retrochic]

I've just realised that if the man (44) is the biological father of these children, then he was 34 and the mother (24) was 14 when the eldest was born -surely he would have been convicted of something if that's the case?

[hc4361]

No, it wouldn't be relevant to this case.

But social services had banned him from having any contact with the children so he should not have been on the school records as a parent to contact. In fact the school should have been aware of the ban.

[Mamyalynne]

Agreed there - I am listed as a contact on all my Grandchildrens School records as an Emergency Contact, but I have no responsibility to ensure they attend and am not able to collect them without prior arrangement.

[Gromit]

// 'We have some sympathy with Mr Allen, whose evidence that he had no contact with these children at the time we make plain that we accept. //

Seems a strange decision. They accept he did not have contact with the children obeying an earlier decision, but they denied the appeal. How he was supposed to prevent them going away if he was denied contact.

The Judgement, as presented, is barmy.

[sp1814]

The judgement is barmy, and I agree with many sympathies here...but I assume that the issue here is that if the school didn't know about the home arrangements (that the father had no contact with the children), then to them he is equally responsible.

...which is just wrong in light of the facts.

This is a case where common sense should prevail, rather than adherence to the minutiae of the law.

[Canary42]

Absolutely stupid, like most things Gove thought up.

[jno]

strict liability offence which means in effect that there's no defence. So the problem is with the law rather than the court.

[hc4361]

jno has hit the nail on the head. It states in the Daily Mail report that is a 'strict liability' offence so there is no defence and the court's hands are tied.

Don't blame the judges.

[ludwig]

If there's no point the judges being there, you have to wonder why they were. It must have cost us quite a bit.

In fact, if their only role is to apply the letter of the law without any ability to inject a bit of common sense or humanity into the process, couldn't we replace them all with a bit of (not very sophisticated) software, and save a fortune?

[hc4361]

No, we couldn't.

[jno]

they have exactly as much leeway as parliament allows them. If something is wrong, it needs to be taken up with your MP, not with the judge.