Mother May Be Jailed for Allowing Son to Grieve at Home

[Canuck Surfer]

It really ticks me off when schools lose sight of things and overstep their boundaries. They are there to educate children, NOT to make decisions on their behalf...that's the parents' responsibility. Parents know the kids best.

My daughter's school tried something like this...told me she had to go on antidepressants and see a psychiatrist. Three people very close to her had died in succession and she was broken and needed empathy and support. She, too, was absent a lot as she struggled to figure it all out.

The school took a strong arm approach and used discipline and referrals. I pulled her out of the school and we never looked back...they were idiots. They did more harm than good, but were steadfast in their "assessment". She ended up on the honour roll at a school that got it right afterward.

How dare they...all of them.

You always struck me as a good mother. Happy your daughter is feeling better.

How dare a school pretend its a doctor & prescribe / force anti-depressants!

[48MPHSlapShot]

All the posters responding to me says otherwise, but thanks for the bad attempt at trying to get under my skin.

I lost my father when I was 10 (shy of my 11th birthday, I somehow think I better identify with this person than you), thanks much. Always funny reading people and their terrible presumptions because someone presents a different argument to their emotional tirade. If I were you I'd fear more for my inability to think rationally and how this is far more a problem than someone who actually seeks out the other side of the argument.

I see you completely ignored the part where I said everybody deals with death in their own way. Any person with the ability to "think rationally" would know that.

Way to pick and choose, man.

And what really scares (and disappoints) me is the fact that a person who has actually dealt with losing a parent can be so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to another family that has gone through the same thing.

We can only take the story as it is presented to us. Assuming things based on absolutely nothing is dangerous ground.

Classic case of "devils advocate" syndrome.

[Mr. Ambien]

I see you completely ignored the part where I said everybody deals with death in their own way. Any person with the ability to "think rationally" would know that.

Way to pick and choose, man.

And what really scares (and disappoints) me is the fact that a person who has actually dealt with losing a parent can be so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to another family that has gone through the same thing.

We can only take the story as it is presented to us. Assuming things based on absolutely nothing is dangerous ground.

Classic case of "devils advocate" syndrome.

- Suggests we should learn more about the other side (school/board/district side) of the argument before coming to conclusions

- Is assuming things based on nothing

Classic case of crappy argument syndrome.

[-DLC-]

ikr, who needs other sides of a story, especially when my outrage meter is over 9000? Some usual suspects with the "I only need one side of the story to come to a conclusion" logic. It's like some people just sit around waiting for the next thing to get upset about.

It can't be that the school or local law enforcement didn't buy into a 45% attendance rate over the span of 14 months.

I bet they are just mean people who don't want anyone to grieve. #outrage #socialjustice #conspiracy

People are so funny. Thank you.

So let's keep it in perspective, shall we?

And speaking about "just sitting around waiting..." Ahem, yep.

Again - in what world is this ok? Doesn't matter if they don't buy into the 45% attendance...they're in place to educate (teachers/school admin) and arrest criminals (law enforcement), not pass judgement on parenting...parent's earn that right by birthing the child. Grieving is legit..ESPECIALLY with young people who can't always process it so well. Important to be supported and around loved ones while doing so...sounds like this school wasn't equipped for that. Again - power trip. Abuse of authority. Overstepping boundaries.

And it's ok to comment on "one side" of a lopsided story. At no time is it ok to punish parents because their kid is struggling and they're trying to get them through it. It's their kid.

[Mr. Ambien]

So let's keep it in perspective, shall we?

(And speaking about "just sitting around waiting..." Ahem, yep.

Again - in what world is this ok? Doesn't matter if they don't buy into th 45% attendance...they're in place to educate, not pass judgement. Grieving is legit..ESPECIALLY with young people who can't always process it so well. Important to be supported while doing so...sounds like this school wasn't equipped.

And it's ok to comment on "one side" of a lopsided story. At no time is it ok to punish parents because their kid is struggling and they're trying to intervene in the way THEY feel is best. It's their kid.

Please put down the outrage and try to critically think. The punishment of the parent is part of the law concerning truancy. The school doesn't arbitrarily decide to jail someone. There are rules concerning a parent getting the school's okay to pull their child out of school for any extended period, and this is over the span of 14 months.

Do the math. There is another side to things, even if you want to pretend they don't exist.

[48MPHSlapShot]

- Suggests we should learn more about the other side (school/board/district side) of the argument before coming to conclusions

- Is assuming things based on nothing

Classic case of crappy argument syndrome.

Who's coming to conclusions?

I've said this multiple times, but nobody seems to mention it, so I will put in in bold. Hopefully it will register with you this time.

WE CAN ONLY TAKE THE STORY AS IT IS PRESENTED TO US.

Also, there's really no reason for the type of nasty comments you're throwing out ("crappy argument", for example").

Also, there's no reason to pigeonhole everybody who is bothered by this story as part of some sort of "I want to be outraged" crowd. Doing so is ignorance at its finest.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect any more from someone who seems dead set against sympathizing with a grieving family.

Also, what Deb said. She put it for more eloquently then I ever could. Upvoted.

Incidentally, nobody has provided a legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't believe the mother at her word.

[Mr. Ambien]

Who's coming to conclusions?

I've said this multiple times, but nobody seems to mention it, so I will put in in bold. Hopefully it will register with you this time.

WE CAN ONLY TAKE THE STORY AS IT IS PRESENTED TO US.

Also, there's really no reason for the type of nasty comments you're throwing out ("crappy argument", for example").

Also, there's no reason to pigeonhole everybody who is bothered by this story as part of some sort of "I want to be outraged" crowd. Doing so is ignorance at its finest.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect any more from someone who seems dead set against sympathizing with a grieving family.

Also, what Deb said. She put it for more eloquently then I ever could. Upvoted.

Incidentally, nobody has provided a legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't believe the mother at her word.

And you say I'm assuming things.. pot meet kettle.

With all the time you've spent whining about my debating style, attempting psychological assessment of forum posters, then whining about your argument getting smashed, you could have Googled this and find out she did indeed break the law. I also addressed this portion in an earlier post, which went ignored.. because evidently I love playing devil's advocate rather than reacting because the writer of an article wants my knee to jerk or heart to bleed.

[-DLC-]

You always struck me as a good mother. Happy your daughter is feeling better.

How dare a school pretend its a doctor & prescribe / force anti-depressants!

Thank you so much. It's the only thing that matters to me (is being a Mom). She is absolutely thriving now...doing really well and is off traveling. She's come so far from where she was at that hellhole of a school.

I found it ridiculous...they didn't even try to work with her. It's a pretty lazy approach in my view...and could have created more problems than anything. Have nothing good to say about the admin there...their loss in giving up on a great kid.

[Cerridwen]

Who's coming to conclusions?

I've said this multiple times, but nobody seems to mention it, so I will put in in bold. Hopefully it will register with you this time.

WE CAN ONLY TAKE THE STORY AS IT IS PRESENTED TO US.

Also, there's really no reason for the type of nasty comments you're throwing out ("crappy argument", for example").

Also, there's no reason to pigeonhole everybody who is bothered by this story as part of some sort of "I want to be outraged" crowd. Doing so is ignorance at its finest.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect any more from someone who seems dead set against sympathizing with a grieving family.

Also, what Deb said. She put it for more eloquently then I ever could. Upvoted.

Incidentally, nobody has provided a legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't believe the mother at her word.

Very well said! Out of +s so giving a written one.

[-DLC-]

Please put down the outrage and try to critically think. The punishment of the parent is part of the law concerning truancy. The school doesn't arbitrarily decide to jail someone. There are rules concerning a parent getting the school's okay to pull their child out of school for any extended period, and this is over the span of 14 months.

Do the math. There is another side to things, even if you want to pretend they don't exist.

And I find it ridiculous. For the record, "truancy" is generally staying away "without good reason". Death of a loved one is probably the most legit reason there is.

Why on Earth should a school "have" to "permit" or "allow" a parent to decide what's best for their child? I've known school administrators who shouldn't be allowed near kids, let alone decide upon their well being. So it's bs in my view. And I'd fight it....rules and laws can be amended over time as we outgrow them and learn as a society. It's called growth and evolving.

At NO time should a parent's rights be overstepped in relation to their child..unless they are abusing or neglecting them. Period.

[Mr. Ambien]

And I find it ridiculous. For the record, "truancy" is generally staying away "without good reason". Death of a love one is probably the most legit reason there is.

Why on Earth should a school "have" to "permit" or "allow" a parent to decide what's best for their child? I've known school administrators who shouldn't be allowed near kids, let alone decide upon their well being. So it's bs in my view. And I'd fight it....rules and laws can be amended over time as we outgrow them and learn as a society. It's called growth and evolving.

Then fly to the UK and tell them about how they should do things like us.

No idea what you would fight, if you read the law she broke, it's set pretty plainly that she must get permission from the school. So you'd be fighting an unambiguous law with feelings. And as I said in a previous post...

After reading numerous articles, there are indeed privacy laws that prevent much info from being extracted (unfortunately it seems important to violate this kid's privacy because people want to go batcrap crazy), but what's obvious is there are long standing rules in that area concerning kids and truancy. Parents are notified extensively that absences from school, especially frequent, require prior approval from the school. Otherwise, they risk fines and jail. And certainly parents are sent notifications regarding this as their kids miss time (particularly without notification/approval), but the parent is playing the usual "I didn't get any of those" card.

It's really something how often people jump to conclusions, and when you present the fact that there is another side of the story, "hurr durr troll", "hurr durr i bet u never experienced a parent dying", etc. Bunch of crazy people.

It's funny because from the start I've known about this situation, because I was sceptical and Googled the information myself, and didn't just knee-jerk because someone wrote an article in a way that made this woman look like such a victim. It's the same people every time on this forum. Normally, that might be reason for pause, that the same people keep falling for these #feels stories. Obviously some don't learn very well. Case in point with the poster below.

[Cerridwen]

And I find it ridiculous. For the record, "truancy" is generally staying away "without good reason". Death of a love one is probably the most legit reason there is.

Why on Earth should a school "have" to "permit" or "allow" a parent to decide what's best for their child? I've known school administrators who shouldn't be allowed near kids, let alone decide upon their well being. So it's bs in my view. And I'd fight it....rules and laws can be amended over time as we outgrow them and learn as a society. It's called growth and evolving.

At NO time should a parent's rights be overstepped in relation to their child..unless they are abusing or neglecting their child. Period.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Deb. +1

It's very sad and unfortunate that some people don't see that first and foremost. One must feel a certain measure of sympathy for the children of such parents.

[-DLC-]

Then fly to the UK and tell them about how they should do things like us.

No idea what you would fight, if you read the law she broke, it's set pretty plainly that she must get permission from the school. So you'd be fighting an unambiguous law with feelings. And as I said in a previous post...

It's funny because from the start I've known about this situation, because I was sceptical and Googled the information myself, and didn't just knee-jerk because someone wrote an article in a way that made this woman look like such a victim. It's the same people every time on this forum. Normally, that might be reason for pause, that the same people keep falling for these #feels stories. Obviously some don't learn very well. Case in point with the poster below.

"No idea what you would fight"?

I'd fight to have it changed. I'd fight for my parental rights over "rules" of permission. I nearly died after 28 hours of labour ... I earned the right to decide. And there are admins and policy makers who have never had kids...what makes them experts? Antiquated laws and policies are only so until they are challenged and, perhaps, changed. Some need to be.

And if you're taking notes on "the same old" people all the time include yourself as part of that.

Seems that you're not as interested in the story as in "proving a point" about others. That's not the point.

As a parent, there's nothing I feel stronger about. And I would fight for the right to decide how my child needed to grieve and who would be part of that. If I had listened to the "rules" that were being shoved down my throat with my daughter she'd be a drugged out zombie listening to a shrink who babbled and never heard her speak. We went (once), to give it a go, and as we walked out of the office she said "Mom, he's like an alien, do I have to go back?". And I had kept quiet so I wouldn't influence her decision, but she nailed it. The guy was a quack and we never went back...to him, or to the school that tried to decide her fate. That wasn't their place.

So this story hits close to the heart for me (ftr, my Mother's death, along with 2 other close friends' deaths in short succession were what plummeted her...the school just shoved her as she got near the edge and I had to pull her back out of the black hole). This one hits home.

How DARE anyone deny a parent the right to decide how best to get their child through tragedy. It's not about rules, it's about common sense.

[48MPHSlapShot]

And you say I'm assuming things.. pot meet kettle.

With all the time you've spent whining about my debating style, attempting psychological assessment of forum posters, then whining about your argument getting smashed, you could have Googled this and find out she did indeed break the law. I also addressed this portion in an earlier post, which went ignored.. because evidently I love playing devil's advocate rather than reacting because the writer of an article wants my knee to jerk or heart to bleed.

As Deb says, society tends to outgrow laws that are deemed out of date. It's called evolving as a society. There are situations where the leniency is warranted, and this is one of them.

It boils down to the school deeming what is and what isn't an appropriate amount of time to grieve, which, IMHO, is quite wrong.

The day that society becomes to rigid and inflexible that exemptions can't be made when the circumstances warrant it is the day that society stops growing as a whole.

There was a time not too long ago when to people of the same sex couldn't get married in this country. These are obviously different situations, with the situation at hand being of much more specific nature, but the idea is the same. In the case of the former, society deemed previous law unjust, and it was changed accordingly. The rules/laws that are being forced upon this grieving family simply aren't fair, given their situation, and they should be either A) Altered accordingly, or B ) Given leniency in this specific circumstance.

[Mr. Ambien]

"No idea what you would fight"?

I'd fight to have it changed. I'd fight for my parental rights over "rules" of permission. I nearly died after 28 hours of labour ... I earned the right to decide. And there are admins and policy makers who have never had kids...what makes them experts? Antiquated laws and policies are only so until they are challenged and, perhaps, changed. Some need to be.

And if you're taking notes on "the same old" people all the time include yourself as part of that.

Seems that you're not as interested in the story as in "proving a point" about others. That's not the point.

I'm actually quite interested in the story. Why? There's a nice lesson to be learned. You know what that is?

Acquaint yourself with the rules/laws of where you live and follow them. There's little excuse for the parent here. She is a native of that region and went to school in the area herself.

I'm actually on your side about parental rights, but this has absolutely jack to do with parental rights. It has to do with a parent breaking laws on truancy by pulling her child from school for extended periods over the span of 14 months and not legally getting permission from the school beforehand.

And as for fighting to change the law, this law has been around since the 1940s, in a country well known for nanny government micromanaging people's lives. Good luck with that one.

[-DLC-]

Tell me this Mr. A.....what is the interest being served in this? The welfare of the child?

He's lost his father and you mean to tell me that the best thing would be for him to also lose his mother? In order to get his butt back in a chair at school?

Ha, sure.

It's all about power and control...as many things are. But when it comes to kids, it's not a game.

[Mr. Ambien]

Tell me this Mr. A.....what is the interest being served in this? The welfare of the child?

He's lost his father and you mean to tell me that the best thing would be for him to also lose his mother? In order to get his butt back in a chair at school?

Ha, sure.

It's all about power and control...as many things are. But when it comes to kids, it's not a game.

My suggestion is you Google the background of the law.

I mean, the truancy background behind it may not resonate nowadays (or maybe it does, I dunno if truancy is still a serious issue in that part of the UK), but at least you'll understand why the law is written the way it is.

And I wouldn't say it's so much about power and control, it's about people behaving. In the UK, they take kids behaving a little on the serious side. In North America, we would focus on the superficial "control" aspect. Note again that I agree with you on the parental issue, but all this #feels stuff is just a distraction. If the problem is with the law, then try to change it. But all this outrage is hilariously missing the mark, acting as if the school itself is throwing people in jail for taking their kids out to grieve. lol. If she had secured permission first this would have been a non issue. So.. whose lap does this fall into? Looks to me like it's the parent's.

[-DLC-]

Read a bit more about it....so tell me this isn't power gone wild? Sometimes people lose sight of things and forget what the rules were initially put in place for. These regulations are in place because parents were pulling kids out of school to vacation (even that is their right). But tell me how this is sensible (it's not, and obviously this needs to be reviewed because kids will pay the price for these ridiculous actions). Bloody ridiculous:

The Government’s change to the law on school absences, introduced in September 2013, was designed to stop families taking pupils on term-time holidays.

But some parents have been penalised for children missing class to attend important events or medical appointments.

In May, Gaynor Hodge, 39, and her husband Leigh, 41, were warned they could face a £1,000 fine if they took their ten-year-old daughter out of school for her grandfather’s funeral.

Hanbury’s Farm Primary School, Tamworth, told the couple the reason did not amount to ‘exceptional circumstances’.

And last year the mother of a seven-year-old girl recovering from cancer was told she could face prison after allowing her daughter to skip seven days of school.

Kerry Capper, 25, said she let her daughter have the odd day off to ‘keep an eye on her’ when she was feeling ill – fearing the disease had returned.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252259/Mother-faces-jail-son-did-not-school-father-died-says-family-desperate-support-no-one-turn-to.html#ixzz3nNnRs7Rx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[48MPHSlapShot]

Tell me this Mr. A.....what is the interest being served in this? The welfare of the child?

He's lost his father and you mean to tell me that the best thing would be for him to also lose his mother? In order to get his butt back in a chair at school?

Ha, sure.

It's all about power and control...as many things are. But when it comes to kids, it's not a game.

That's a good point. With all of the bickering going so far, the real issue is (or at least should be) the welfare of the child.

What purpose does it serve to force this punishment on a mother who, by all accounts, was simply doing what she thought was best for her child?

If the mother is jailed, then what? The kid loses his mother during what is obviously already a tragic time in his life. Yeah, I'm sure that won't affect the welfare of the child.

And for what? So the school can say they strictly adhered to some outdated rule? OK then.

This isn't a nuts-and bolts issue, as much as some people want to make it out to be.

[-DLC-]

"Behaving"??

Grieving the loss of the most significant person in your life doesn't count as bad behaviour. It's called tragedy and loss.

To a kid, when someone has cancer it's called devastating and terrifying.

So rules to protect them during those times should be in place. Nothing else.