Rights in Conflict?

bobbyss

I would be interested in hearing the opinions on the following.

All students in a school X are collected and brought home by bus. One student has grossly misbehaved on bus, and the sanction is he is not collected until a parent brings him in to discuss the behaviour and ensure it does not happen again. This is as per school rules.

The student is not suspended, mind you, merely from using the bus. The student can get Dublin Bus to come to school or his parents could drop him in and collect.

Problem: The parents do not allow him (he is 15) to use Dublin Bus apparently. They say their car is broken. He is not interested in coming to school anyway and the parents could not care less one way or another. Result: Said student has been absent from school for a long time.

Are the parents guilty of any crime in not making any effort to bring student to school? What should school do?

Thanks in advance.

234

bobbyss wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing the opinions on the following.

All students in a school X are collected and brought home by bus. One student has grossly misbehaved on bus, and the sanction is he is not collected until a parent brings him in to discuss the behaviour and ensure it does not happen again. This is as per school rules.

The student is not suspended, mind you, merely from using the bus. The student can get Dublin Bus to come to school or his parents could drop him in and collect.

Problem: The parents do not allow him (he is 15) to use Dublin Bus apparently. They say their car is broken. He is not interested in coming to school anyway and the parents could not care less one way or another. Result: Said student has been absent from school for a long time.

Are the parents guilty of any crime in not making any effort to bring student to school? What should school do?

Thanks in advance.

There are no rights in conflict here

Here is some guidance on the responsibilities of parents re school attendance.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/attendance_and_discipline_in_schools/school_attendance.html

bobbyss

234 wrote: »

There are no rights in conflict here

Here is some guidance on the responsibilities of parents re school attendance.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/attendance_and_discipline_in_schools/school_attendance.html

Thanks for your response.

My understanding was that a parent must send their children to school.

If a parent, under the above circumstances, is clearly failing to send his child to school does this not amount to neglect and is therefore child abuse?

Ken.

I don't know about child abuse but I do remember this story in the news last year. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mother-jailed-for-not-sending-her-three-daughters-to-school-28960186.html

A MOTHER of three has been jailed for not sending her children to school.

The woman, who was described as "too liberal", kept her three girls at home for colds and flu without any doctors' notes, a court heard.

The children missed 28 days from last September – more than a third of the school term. Apart from the illnesses, the Dublin mother, who is in her 30s, alleged that one of the children was being bullied.

But a judge sentenced her to 28 days after being told there was no medical evidence of their illnesses or a bullying complaint.

The prosecution was brought by the National Education Welfare Board.
......

Judge McHugh said the board had done everything they could, and he had "no hesitation" in sending the woman to prison.

the world wonders

bobbyss wrote: »

If a parent, under the above circumstances, is clearly failing to send his child to school does this not amount to neglect and is therefore child abuse?

No, it amounts to not sending your child to school which is a crime in its own right under the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000:

25.—(1) Subject to section 17 (2), the Board shall, if of opinion that a parent is failing or neglecting to cause his or her child to attend a recognised school in accordance with this Act, serve a notice (hereafter in this section referred to as a “school attendance notice”) on such parent—


(a) requiring him or her on the expiration of such period as is specified in the notice, to cause his or her child named in the notice to attend such recognised school as is specified in the notice, and there to attend on each school day that the notice is in force, and


(b) informing him or her that if he or she fails to comply with a requirement under paragraph (a) he or she shall be guilty of an offence.


(2) A school attendance notice under this section shall remain in force for such period as may be specified in the notice or until it is revoked by the Board.


(3) Before making a school attendance notice the Board shall, in such manner as it considers appropriate, make all reasonable efforts to consult with—


(a) the parents of the child concerned, and


(b) the principal of the recognised school that the Board proposes to specify in such notice,


and shall, when so specifying a recognised school, have regard, as far as is practicable, to the preference (if any) expressed by the said parents.


(4) A person who contravenes a requirement in a school attendance notice shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Problem: The parents do not allow him (he is 15) to use Dublin Bus apparently. They say their car is broken. He is not interested in coming to school anyway and the parents could not care less one way or another.

The parents don't care enough to make sure he goes to school, but they're so overprotective they're afraid to let a 15-year-old use the public bus service? This doesn't add up...

bobbyss

the world wonders wrote: »

No, it amounts to not sending your child to school which is a crime in its own right under the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000:The parents don't care enough to make sure he goes to school, but they're so overprotective they're afraid to let a 15-year-old use the public bus service? This doesn't add up...

Thanks for your response.

Believe me, it adds up all right. I have no idea why the child is not allowed to take the bus to school. The child is well over 6 feet tall. I think he himself has no problem taking the bus but is simply not allowed.

Some parents do not care enough for their children that the rights of the child become very secondary indeed.

If the parents are neglecting to ensure their 15 year old attends schools I would have thought they would be guilty of neglect. Neglect is a form of child abuse.

I wonder how many parents have been successfully prosecuted for the above in the recent past? Very very few i would imagine.

Peregrinus

There are a number of things the parents could do:

They could go in to the school to discuss the disciplinary issue, so allowing their son to resume use of the school bus.

They could allow him to take the public bus to school.

They could allow him to walk or cycle to school.

They're not doing any of them. This seems to me to fall fairly clearly within s.25.

bobbyss

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a number of things the parents could do:

They could go in to the school to discuss the disciplinary issue, so allowing their son to resume use of the school bus.

They could allow him to take the public bus to school.

They could allow him to walk or cycle to school.

They're not doing any of them. This seems to me to fall fairly clearly within s.25.

They do not wish to go to the school to discuss the matter.

In fairness to the child , walking/cycling is not an option as it is about 6 miles. No. They will not allow him to take public bus. (I think they think it is unsafe ie muggings etc.) The attitude around this is: 'I don't know how you bring up your children but I ...'

A clear cut case of neglect I would say.

Peregrinus

He's fifteen years old, and his parents think a six mile cycle is beyond him? They're afraid he'll be mugged on a public bus during commuting hours? But despite their tender care for his welfare, they "do not wish" to go to his school to discuss a serious disciplinary issue? And it's a matter of indifference to them that this combination of attitudes is effectively excluding him from school?

I don't know how you bring up your children, but they are raising theirs in an infantilising and incapacitating way.

bobbyss

Peregrinus wrote: »

He's fifteen years old, and his parents think a six mile cycle is beyond him? They're afraid he'll be mugged on a public bus during commuting hours? But despite their tender care for his welfare, they "do not wish" to go to his school to discuss a serious disciplinary issue? And it's a matter of indifference to them that this combination of attitudes is effectively excluding him from school?

I don't know how you bring up your children, but they are raising theirs in an infantilising and incapacitating way.

Thanks for your response.
I agree with you 100%. This is a clear cut example of where childrens' rights come secondary to the wishes of the parents. The NEWB will take a long time to deal with the matter. Shortly he will be 16 and lost to the system i.e. he will leave school. Then NEWB will lose interest as they have to deal with chidren who are actually going to school.

Carawaystick

ken wrote: »

I don't know about child abuse but I do remember this story in the news last year. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mother-jailed-for-not-sending-her-three-daughters-to-school-28960186.html

A MOTHER of three has been jailed for not sending her children to school.

The woman, who was described as "too liberal", kept her three girls at home for colds and flu without any doctors' notes, a court heard.

The children missed 28 days from last September – more than a third of the school term. Apart from the illnesses, the Dublin mother, who is in her 30s, alleged that one of the children was being bullied.

But a judge sentenced her to 28 days after being told there was no medical evidence of their illnesses or a bullying complaint.

The prosecution was brought by the National Education Welfare Board.
......

Judge McHugh said the board had done everything they could, and he had "no hesitation" in sending the woman to prison.

This, unless I'm missing something, seems harsh. Why sould someone need to pay someone sixty quid to confirm their own knowledge?

It would be perfectly acceptable if a layperson diagnosed a fractured limb, when a person had a shin at right angles to their leg. They might like a doctor to help fix it though.

If a child has an easily diagnosed viral illness, with no medical or surgical cure available, why should a parent have to pay a doctor to tell them to give the child analgesics, for a judge to recognise the illness actually occurred. Especially if the children who the parents declared were ill, gave no testimony

Peregrinus

Well, it does seem harsh, but it;s relevant that the woman was already subject to a suspended sentence because of a prior conviction for the same offence. And her children were missing school on a scale and frequency which suggested that, if absence was due to illness, the illness was neither trivial nor transient; not to seek medical advice and treatment in that circumstance would itself point to neglect. There was evidence that one child did see a doctor on one occasion, and the doctor refused to certify her, which might suggest that the mother's diagnoses were not reliable, and that she generally avoided seeking medical advice so as to prevent this coming to light.