EP96 The Legal Chapter: What Parental Responsibility Actually Means (with Rebecca Baker)

This one’s for the parent who’s ever whispered “am I doing this right?” into a tear-stained pillow at 2 in the morning. 

In this essential legal and emotional deep-dive, I’m joined once again by powerhouse solicitor Rebecca Baker….  the Consultant Family Law Solicitor you need on speed dial the moment everything crumbles.

Because post-divorce parenting? It’s not just about who gets the kids on Tuesday. It’s about navigating big decisions with someone who may still be triggering your nervous system.

Together, we unpack….

• What “Parental Responsibility” really means….  legally and emotionally
  
  
• Who gets to decide on school choices, medical treatment, holidays, and even surnames
  
  
• What to do when your ex throws around “I’ve got rights” like a tantrum

PLUS: Rebecca shares the 3 biggest battles she sees (and how to avoid them).

⚖️ From real-life examples (think, vegan vs. steak dad debates) to court-backed realities, this episode will leave you clearer, calmer, and less likely to scream into your cereal.

This is the episode your future self (and your child) will thank you for.

With so much love,

Sarah x

🩷

📞 Contact Rebecca Baker

• Phone: (+44) 01226 103054
  
  
• Email: rebecca@rucklidges.co.uk
  
  
• Website: rucklidges.co.uk
  
  

📘 Resources mentioned in the episode:

Books for Children in Divorce

Decision Making and Exercising Parental Responsibility

CAFCASS link: Parenting Plan (CAFCASS)

THE DIVORCE BOOK CLUB
 
https://patreon.com/thedivorcebookclub

FREE Guide to the 10 MUST read divorce books after divorce

https://thedivorcebookclub.com/free-resources/

INSTAGRAM

https://www.instagram.com/thedivorcechapter

Transcript

SPEAKERS

Rebecca Baker, Sarah Elizabeth

Sarah Elizabeth  00:00

Hola, and welcome back to the divorce chapter, the podcast where we turn the What the fuck now of divorce into badass AF energy one episode at a time. I'm your host, Sarah Elizabeth, and today's episode is for every mother who's ever whispered, am I doing this right into a pillow at two o'clock in the morning today, I'm joined again by the brilliant Rebecca Baker, a powerhouse consultant solicitor from Rucklidge Law Limited with over 30 years experience in navigating the legal, emotional and deeply human parts of family law. Rebecca is the solicitor you wish you'd had when everything fell apart. She's compassionate, clear and always about the best outcome, not the biggest drama. Last time on the divorce chapter, she gave us the breakdown of divorce basics, and today we're going deeper. Yes, we are, because post divorce parenting isn't just about where the kids sleep on a Tuesday, it's about how you hold their safety, your sanity, and 100 million decisions that nobody prepares you for. So we're going to talk about what parental responsibility really means, legally and emotionally, why you can say no, even if your ex throws around words like, it's my right, we've got rights. I've got rights.And how to make decisions for your kids without setting off world war three. So if you've ever cried over a school application frozen when the ex was asked to take them on holiday, or wondered if you're ruining your child just by existing, this one's for you. Let's go. Welcome back. Rebecca,

Rebecca Baker  01:46

thank you for having me again. Always, always welcome. Oh, that's kind. Thank you. 

Sarah Elizabeth  01:52

Tell us parental responsibility in simple human speak layman's terms, what is parental responsibility and who gets it?

Rebecca Baker  02:05

Okay, so parental responsibility is a legal expression that we used to embody, the rights, the responsibilities and the duties a parent has in relation to his or her child. So people with parental responsibility is mum because they've given birth to the child. Dad has parental responsibility if he's named on the birth certificate or if he subsequently marries mum. The other people who have parental responsibilities, somebody who has the benefit of the child arrangements live with order. So in some circumstances, a grandparent might have an order that the child lives with them. Through a live with order, they have parental responsibility too, but generally speaking, it's usually mum and dad.

Sarah Elizabeth  02:59

So could a parent lose parental responsibility, or could it be taken away? That's it, once they've got it, that's it.

Rebecca Baker  03:07

It would be in exceptional circumstances. I think it would be really, really difficult to take parental responsibility. But it's not unheard of, and it's usually in desperate situations where you've got social services involved, and so forth, but it's so rare that I would say it's not something to even worry about, yeah,

Sarah Elizabeth  03:28

because it's usually only when a child's been adopted, isn't it?

Rebecca Baker  03:31

Of course, yes. Certainly when, if a child's adopted into another family, the parents don't have PR anymore. It's the adoptive parents who have it, yeah,

Sarah Elizabeth  03:39

but by and large. Did I see something recently that some someone who'd been convicted of murder or something? I think it was the guy killed the mum, the dad killed the mum, and I think it's gone through court that he's now had his PR removed,

Rebecca Baker  04:02

that would be the kind of extreme circumstances that PR would be removed from

Sarah Elizabeth  04:07

the Yes, that's good to know. By and large, it's when mum, obviously, because she's given birth, and dad, when he's on the birth certificate or marriage. Yeah,

Rebecca Baker  04:15

and it's important to remember that parental responsibility is equal to both parents. So just because you given birth to a child doesn't mean to say that your rights are somehow bigger or better or more important than dad's rights. I mean, as a mother myself, I kind of get that sometimes you do feel like there's a not an ownership, but you kind of felt that first kick, didn't you, and you really there's a unique connection isn't there between mum and a child that you know, Dad's not giving birth to the child, obviously, but I think that's where the law helps us by emphasising the equality of the parental responsibility between parents and I always remind clients that actually there's no difference between you you are. Equally important. And it's not just about rights. I think with parental responsibility, the key factor in it are the responsibility element of it. You know, when you said earlier rights, people have right, it's not about rights, it's responsibility, yeah, and I think that's a more helpful way of thinking about it, really

Sarah Elizabeth  05:19

completely. And I think that's part of the challenge in divorce, particularly, isn't it? Because what tends to happen is, usually the dad are being very gendered and judgmental, but usually the dad will be going, well, you can't do that. I've got rights, you know? And that's where it's bringing it back to that responsibility, isn't it? I'll

Rebecca Baker  05:39

be honest, sometimes it's mum. The thing is, what we're trying to do here is explain the law, aren't we, and apply it to facts. Yeah, everything I say applies to mum, dad and every situation I've ever dealt with, sometimes it's been dad who's been main carer. Mum always trying to spend time with the child. It's often the other way around. But sometimes we're just trying to make a point, aren't we? By by saying this, I don't think there's any attempt of either of us trying to generalise these cases.

Sarah Elizabeth  06:10

God, no, no. I'm using dads. That's really unfamiliar dads, but like you say, mums as well. It's that concept that it's about a right over the child, so it's really useful to bring it back to that responsibility.

Rebecca Baker  06:23

I think it's really, really interesting with mums that I mean particularly, I think it was last year I was representing a lady and she was in a same sex relationship and had had a child through IVF, and the dispute, I think, seemed to lie in the fact that my clients had actually given birth to the child and the other party hadn't yet. They were both named on the birth certificate, yeah, so they both had joint parental responsibility, yes, yeah. As a gay parents of this little boy, and I remember my client, she'd actually given birth. There was a real proprietary feeling from her. She was saying, but he's mine. He came from me, and I gave birth to him, and it were like, but I understand that, but the rights of your ex are equal and as important. But there was a real tension, and I think that's why the situation became so it was a really highly contested case, actually, but I think the main problem behind it was almost the psychology of my client, thinking, this child is mine, it's my birth child, and I understand that, but I think the frustration lied with the other parent thinking, Well, I never did give birth. And I think the plan was with that particular couple, and they were a lovely, lovely couple. She was going to have one baby, and then they were going they were going to have another baby, but the other baby was going to be birthed by the other parent. And I think there was an imbalance between them. They had this argument birth, and I've seen it many, many times over the years, that mum seems to feel as though actually I've got more rights. I mean, sometimes it can feel really unfair because Dad and, again, we're generalising, goes to work, mum stays at home, looks after child, or works part time, possibly feels well, I've given all this up, and therefore, you know, my sacrifice has been greater. So therefore it should be me who gets first dibs on this holiday or this decision in relation to this particular topic, and I think it's just a natural tension that exists between humans.

Sarah Elizabeth  08:30

Yeah, think you're absolutely right thinking about mums. Probably do have that propriety of my child, but I think that other point that you just made as well about mums generally being the one to stay at home, that then in a divorce arrangement, then comes that the mum is like got predominantly the care of the child so feels that they know the child's needs better, and that's often how it would then get reflected is that, well, they live with me. I know them better than you do. This is what they need. So in terms of then bringing it back, PR, the parental responsibility and decisions when we're thinking about divorce, and we've got two separated parents who should be putting the child as central and first? But we know that in that emotional time of divorce, that's not always the case, and it can be a tit for tat, very difficult, acrimonious relationship. Who can make decisions when you've got PR and what does need that joint arrangement?

Rebecca Baker  09:45

Okay, so I have got a little list that I keep handily, what I'm going to share this with you, Sarah afterwards, so that you can put it in the show notes. So people reference to this. Yeah. I think where people struggle is when you are in a situation where childs with you, something happens. Am I doing the right or wrong things in these circumstances? Okay? So I always break it down. So first thing to think about, what decisions can a parent make without notifying or consulting the other person? Right? I think that's the first most important thing to think about, because you're thinking, well, when I'm at home, when something happens, do I have to ring him or ring her every time something goes wrong? And the answer is no. So decisions that can be taken without notifying or consulting the other person. Are activities that the child is undertaking, you know, going to dancing class. Are they going to cricket? Are they going to football? Whatever they might be doing, that's fine. They can do it. They can have the friends around for tea, you know, like the practical things that they're doing day by day, that's all fine, how the child spends their time, which is an extension of number one, really, which, again, is things like going to a friend's house for tea or having a sleepover, or things like that. They're all okay. These are the child's activities, routine discipline. So this can be a big one, because routine discipline is often, you know, one parent may be a little bit more strict than another parent. So really, the law says when the child is with you, then you employ what methods you think to discipline that child, and don't worry about the other parent will do because the other parent will employ their own methods. I mean, what you'll probably get from this as we go through it is, this is why it's always the best outcome for the children, if the parents are on the same side, Yeah, completely. Because, if not, all these little areas of their lives are gonna have conflict or differences in it. So if you can do something like it can be on your phone all night at dad's house, but you can't at mum's house. A kid might think I actually prefer going to dad's house because I'm not disciplined as strongly when it comes to the phone. So routine discipline, that's that's separate personal care for a child, washing, dressing, grooming, feeding, all that. It's fine. You're at home, it's fine daily care and control child's personal possessions and property. So that's their things. This is just practical stuff, okay? So making an attending routine, medical checkups, dental optical appointments, all that is within your own decision at home, continuing child's prescribed medical treatment. So this is kind of when the medical treatment is already ongoing. So decisions about medicine have already been made, but it's just continuing them.

Sarah Elizabeth  12:53

So if I'm the mum, say that the child is with me 70,30 say so I've got the child 70% of the time. Dad's got 30% and the child needs a doctor's visit, visit to the GP or whatever. Would I be absolutely fine in taking that child to the GP and agreeing any medication or prescriptions or anything like that, or would I have to consult the dad?

Rebecca Baker  13:26

Planned medical and dental treatment beyond routine checkups fall within the remit of decisions to be made in consultation with all holders of PR right? So imagine childs got cold or got chicken pox, some childhood disease, go to the doctors, get the treatment. Tell the other parent, that's it, right? More serious things. I think the key point is with the planning, isn't it, if there is something to be done, is an operation to be had, God forbid it's chemotherapy or something like that. I think decisions about that, those are the decisions that have to be made in consultation with the other parent or everyone with PR so you know, in the situation, when we said at the beginning, grandma's got live with order, she's got parental responsibility so that grandma would need the consent of mum with PR and dad with PR. Okay, okay. Do you see what I mean? So it's kind of when I say the other parent, I mean the other parent with PR, or other parties who have got PR for a child. And the thing is, is, in your own circumstances, you know, people have PR because it's usually quite a big deal if we've got any issues with parental responsibility or co applications. And I

Sarah Elizabeth  14:48

assume, with my social worker hat on, I recall a situation where parents did not agree on the medical treatment of a child. Child that was potentially life threatening. And in those situations, the hospital essentially made the best interest of the child decision, and then it got it got very

Rebecca Baker  15:12

messy, but in that situation, they are the hospital themselves, have got to apply to the court. Exactly. That's what happened. They they applied, yeah, yeah, they can apply to the court for a decision, because ultimately, this is what it boils down to, if the parties can't reach a decision, the classic example, or that there's been a case historically, the name escapes me, but the child was a Jehovah's Witness, and they don't agree with blood transfusions, and the child needed life saving blood transfusion, the parents said no. And what happened there? The hospital went to court, and the court intervened and said it's in the child's best interest, and they had to have the blood transfusion. Yes, but interestingly enough, that child grew up and their cancer that they had as a child came back, there was still a Jehovah. They refused the treatment and died. Yeah, as an adult, he said, I don't want the blood transfusion. I'm a Jehovah. It's against my belief that person did actually die once they grew up. So it's interesting, isn't it? Yeah, I think it's a really difficult topic, but those are one of the circumstances where you need PR to you've got to agree on it. If you don't agree on it, the court will then intervene, or there's an application made to the court, either by the medical profession, or sometimes in in a circumstances where parents are separated, they might have a dispute in front of the court, then the court will make a decision, because the court's got to make that decision objectively, without emotion, haven't they? They've got to say, This is what's in the best interest of the child. Because in every single case, that's what the court is doing. What is in the best interest of the child, it's the paramount consideration of the court. I mean, you'll know yourself through your own work that it is really the main factor that drives everything. Always that, funnily enough, when we were talking about kind of gone off on one and said, can't be done. No, no, it's fine, because it does go in quite nicely into the next one. So we were kind of working through this list of things that you can do without consulting. You're okay to make the decision yourself. One of them is actually the practice and participation in religious and spiritual pursuits. Oh, so if you've got two families, yeah, that separated, and one family follow one religious practice and the other party follows another one, you are able and should take your child to your place of spiritual belief, because it's for the children to experience both cultures and understand both differences in their own parentage in their own Heritage. So it's absolutely fine for your child to participate in your own religious and spiritual pursuit, but when they go to the other parents home, then they can participate in their religious and spiritual pursuits as well. Child then sees a balance, don't they?

Sarah Elizabeth  18:17

So what would happen there? Sorry, I'm putting you on the spot with all these, okay? I mean, by and large, it's going to be the routine stuff and things like holidays that people want to know, but it's just interesting talking about it. What would happen then with this religious one that say you were in a religion, so like, for example, Hindus don't eat beef, right? And the other parent was a Christian, and said, I don't have that belief. I'm going to give them beef. And so say I'm Mum, I'm Hindu, and I'm saying I really do not want my child to have beef because that's not within my religious beliefs. And the father then says, well, give us shit. I'm giving them steak love, there's nothing then would be able to do, is there?

Rebecca Baker  19:05

This is where it gets tricky. But if you think about it, what the law says is that the child should have the opportunity to learn about and experience both religions. So I have to say, I've never been involved with a case personally where I've got a judge adjudicating on whether somebody should eat beef, you make a good point. Because how outside religion, for instance, you might have somebody who's a passionate vegan, yeah, absolutely. And then they go to the other parents address, and that person might be a state connoisseur. Do you know what I mean? Yeah, it might have been the reason for the relationship breaking down, to be fair, when you absolutely but I think there has to be. I mean, I've never come across genuine, but in 30 years, people will sort this stuff out the cells, mustn't they, because in 30 years, nobody's ever said to me the other parent keeps giving him meat, and I'm a dude. Vegan. I've never actually had

Sarah Elizabeth  20:04

that. They cancelled it out. In the end, I always go worst case scenario, social

Rebecca Baker  20:09

work. But it's interesting, you know, because if I ask other family law colleagues, I bet somebody will have come across this situation. And I think if a client said this to me, I think what I would say is, at the end of the day, your beliefs are there, but they're yours. They not your child's, and your child should be given the opportunity to choose. I think that would be the perspective of the law, that the child is an individual, too, and I know that if that child is a very small child, then they're not going to be able to make a decision in the same way. But I guess that children that, well, children are individual, aren't they? So and they will eventually make their decision, yeah, so perhaps it's wrong to impose these decisions on children, yes, until they're old enough to I don't know. I think everybody it's your parenting style, it's how you feel as an individual. Yes, do you know what I mean?

Sarah Elizabeth  21:07

Yeah, totally. And it is. It comes back to that reframing PR was parental responsibility for their welfare, whatever used as a parent or the person with PR that believe that

Rebecca Baker  21:20

true, yeah, and your parental duties to keep a child safe. What's an outside risk of significant harm? I can't imagine any judge saying this child has to be vegan because this parent's vegan. I think they would say the child will experience what it does in a vegan household, and then what they might experience in a meat eating household, and then the child will grow up and make decisions based on their own wishes and feelings and what they want to do.

Sarah Elizabeth  21:56

I think that the challenge, though, isn't it, because I see risk very differently as a social worker, but I hear separated parents all the time saying the other parent is a risk to their child what they're doing. I don't consider it to be a risk.

Rebecca Baker  22:15

So you tell me, then what's risky? Because that is really interesting,

Sarah Elizabeth  22:19

something like they meet a new partner that has a conviction for something non child related, so like burglary, they meet a new partner who's been convicted of burglary, the parent might say, well, they've got a conviction. They're a convicted criminal. They shouldn't be around my child that's a risk to my child. From my perspective, I would say someone with a burglary conviction isn't a risk to children. No, I agree, and I see that quite a lot in work and in divorce work that the parents perception of what is a risk is potentially skewed. So if you say to not that sounds really mean to say it's skewed, but in proportionate I wouldn't consider it a risk, and the courts wouldn't consider it a risk. So so like the vegan meat example, a vegan might consider it a risk to the child for whatever

Rebecca Baker  23:21

their belief as it but that's why you have the court there. Don't you to provide an objective opinion, an objective approach to a decision that parents aren't capable of making, because the vegan cannot see anything or think of anything more abhorrent than meat eating, whereas the other parent thinks, Well, you know, I love my steak on a on a Saturday night, and why shouldn't the child get the opportunity to try steak too? I think the court would agree with us there that that's not a risk, and I think that's why the court needs to be involved in some situations, because parents can just find that compromise because of the strength of their own beliefs. And that's the problem, isn't it? This is the problem with everything, and in particular with separated families, is that everybody is different, and we it's we don't always agreed away, and if a couple have separated, then they might not be agreeing on these little micro issues, and it's going to be even worse than before. Yeah, but

Sarah Elizabeth  24:32

I think that's quite really interesting to bring it back to the legal basis and say what PR actually means in practice. I think that's right, so useful to have these conversations.

Rebecca Baker  24:43

It's why it's good to have conversations like this, because people don't understand parental responsibility. But it does affect and impact every part of our practical day to day lives. It really does. I mean, this is one of the reasons I created this particular. Document, because people were asking me these questions all the time. And what I do now, as a standard when I'm sending information out to clients in a family case, is I send them this and I say to them, this is your point of reference. It's not a finite document that will give you every example that you can think of, but it is certainly guidance. And the thing is, as well, is that I think you've got to apply common sense to these things. When it comes down to it, try and talk to each other and apply common sense to a situation that that's it. Once you've done that, you're gonna get on a lot better out here. That's my experience of it anyway?

Sarah Elizabeth  25:42

Yeah, no, I completely digress, though, into something random that probably is not going to happen, but let's bring it back to something a little bit more normal that people are likely to be experiencing.

Rebecca Baker  25:53

Yeah. So the other thing you can attend school functions and parents evening without consulting the other parent. Yeah. So that's a really important one to remember. You know, there's something going on at school. You can go parents evening, you can go you don't have to ask the other person's permission. In my experience, if there is any issues, live issues, if there's a domestic violence situation or something like that, I always say to parties, look, arrange separate appointments, and schools are really sympathetic with that, so, but you don't need the other person's permission to turn up and watch your child in the nativity play. For instance, just go. It's fine. Just

Sarah Elizabeth  26:32

go. What about a school application? This

Rebecca Baker  26:35

is one of the ones where you have to agree. Okay, so I'm still on the ones that you can agree. I'm just gonna shut up. Let's move around. It's not, it's not the straight list. I just wanted to give people an idea of what they can do. I think it's brilliant. Yeah, this last one might, I don't know, surprise. I'll just read it out and see what you think appointing a guardian in their will to care for the child in the event of their death, you can do that without notifying the other person. So when you make a will, yeah, well, obviously with regard to your assets and where they pass on afterwards, the other thing that you can do in your will is nominate a guardian. So in those circumstances, you can say, right, my child, if I die, I want my sister to take care of the child. You appoint the sister as a person to look after your under 18 child. Okay? So you can do that without telling the other person. That's quite shocking, when you think about it,

Sarah Elizabeth  27:41

I never knew that. That's quite a biggie, isn't it, yeah. But

Rebecca Baker  27:47

if you think about a will, all it will is, is a statement of your wishes, isn't it? Yes. So just because you've said that doesn't mean that your sister will automatically be the person who ends up looking after your child? Yeah, because if you think about it, the reality here is it's then for sister to say, you know, you die. Will's read it. Will's aren't read out in the same ways he used to be. But the intention in the will is stated. Then it would be for sister to say, right, Child's coming to live with me? Dad might agree. You never know it might say yes, but if there is a dispute, it's for the sister and dad to have the argument. Post mom's down. Wow, that's only he can do.

Sarah Elizabeth  28:34

So if say Mum died and put in her will that she wanted her sister to become the legal guardian, and the sister says, Okay, what's the sister's position with PR?

Rebecca Baker  28:49

Sister then needs to apply to the court, right for a child arrangements order and live with order, right? Okay, if it's disputed, if I was approached by that sister. Even if it wasn't disputed, I would still say, apply for a child arrangement, sort of so you get the PR in any event, you would imagine that if a mum was going to do this, in reality, they would have discussed all this in advance with the sister. Yeah. Yeah. You know, there might even be a pot of money that is passed on to sister to argue it if required. So I think that it wouldn't be a sister reading the piece of paper for the first time and thinking, right, I've got, I'm suddenly in love with Dad. Do you know what I mean? Because I didn't know about

Sarah Elizabeth  29:42

I wouldn't

Rebecca Baker  29:45

talk to my sister first and say, This is what I want you to do in the event, yeah? Because I've got to be up for it, and they've got to consent. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, totally. So that's all the things you can do with. Up telling the other parent what you're doing. So it's extensive, isn't it? Probably a bigger list than one would imagine.

Sarah Elizabeth  30:07

Yeah, I definitely didn't know that about the Guardian thing. Yeah. So then summer holidays coming up, holidays because you didn't say holidays on that

Rebecca Baker  30:17

list? No, I didn't, because, in fact, the list of decisions to be made in consultation with the everyone with PR is much longer, but there is another list in between the two lists. Oh, my goodness. But this is the thing about PR. This is why it's complex, huge, because these matters aren't easy to deal with. They are extensive. They involve people. They involve big decisions and a lot of cooperation. And because people don't talk to each other or can't talk to each other for whatever thing has happened between them, this is why the law is a complicated thing, and this is why I've never come up against the same situation twice in 30 years. It's just never the same. Sometimes I go into a consultation or a meeting with somebody, My mouth's open because I can't believe what they're saying to me. And still happens. Still happens. Yeah, yeah. I'm going to whiz through very, very quickly the list of decisions that a person with PR can make for a child that this is a subtle difference, they've got to then notify the other person. So this is you're dealing with a scenario, then you've got to tell the other party, okay, right? Treatment in an emergency, right? That's common sense, isn't it? Something's happened, but you must tell the other parent. Yeah, the key that you do holiday bookings and taking a child abroad during school holidays are agreed contact time, so that's when you need to tell the other person. This does come in. You need the person's permission as well. That that is what's on the list in the sense of, if you've got a live with order, you don't need the other parents permission. So, so that's an important distinction. If you've got an order that says the child should live with you, then you could take that child on holiday for up to 28 days without the other parents permission, right? But those arrangements can conflict with the other parents. Contact home,

Sarah Elizabeth  32:27

right? Okay, so you've got a lives with order. They live with you and you want to go to Cypress for a two week, all inclusive in the school holidays, yeah, but Dad would normally have them that weekend, in the middle of those two weeks, yeah, just he's got to give us permission. Still,

Rebecca Baker  32:53

I don't think he has to give permission, particularly because of the holiday. What I would say to somebody who was planning such a holiday is offer replacement contact. Okay, you're still in breach of an order, actually, in those circumstances, so in theory, yes, you probably need the permission, right? I think this is a funny one to be sat in this list, to be honest, because it conflicts quite strongly with the list of things I'm going to tell you, where you need both parties permission, right? Okay, but, yeah, it's a funny one, that that's what, that's what's on the list. So planned visits to a general or nurse practitioner, the reasons for this, so you can do that and then tell who the parent afterwards. So it's like going back. It's been to the doctors today. He's got a cold. I think you've got to tell the other parent that, by way of courtesy, haven't you a change of address within the local area that would neither disrupt contact or require a change of school. So if you want to move, you don't need to ask the permission of the other person, but you've got to notify them that you've moved right, provided it doesn't require a change to school. So if the child's still going to the same school and still having the same contact with the other parent, you don't actually need to tell them you move them. You can just say after the event, right? Do you have to give me your address? I knew you were going to say that

Rebecca Baker  34:31

awkward hat on today. I'm going to give that lawyer answer if it depends there is no safeguarding risk or domestic violence issues or domestic abuse issues within the relationship, I would suggest to a parent, you probably need to share that information, right? And if there's no reason, no special reason, not to share that information, I'd do so because otherwise it it's just another reason to have an argument, isn't it? Pick your back. Poles, and in these situations, I think it's really important to remember that you've got to pick your bath poles. But do you have to give the address? Probably you're not compelled to give the address, but if you don't for no good reason, I think you're in difficulty, because if the other person does apply to court for a specific issue order to supply the address, then they'd get it. So if a client said to me, should I give the address? I would say, yes, yeah, okay, yeah, that, you know, if you were stalking or causing trouble or the reason for the move would have been because of the other parent, then I'd say, No, you know. And then you'd have to go, if he applied for the address, he'd have to tell the judge why he shouldn't have the address.

Sarah Elizabeth  35:45

Yeah. And again, he's putting the decision about respect to the court, isn't it?

Rebecca Baker  35:51

Yeah, it is. There are lots of others on the list which I think are less important than the big ones, which are the decisions to be made in consultation with everybody with PR, I think it's important that we get to that point, because that's the main one, isn't it? Yeah. Okay, so the big ones are both parties have to agree the selection of the school the child is attending, including making the school admission application. Okay, right? Okay, goes on to say that decisions about selection of the child's senior school are to be made considering the child's views and in consultation with the advice of the child's teachers. So you know, one parent might have more information than the others in those circumstances, it comes back to being practical and sensible and trying to talk to each other. And you know, actually, let's make a decision that's in the best interest of the child here, not because it's, I don't know, 20 miles away from where I live, and it's five miles from your house. It's not about that. It's about what's best for this child. The other thing I would say, and I've dealt with this many times, if there's going to be any rumbles about which school, make sure you get in and see a solicitor really early, because the court is very, very slow, and these school application admissions come up long before the child is actually starting school. Yeah. So sometimes you might need to be applying to court at least 12 months before your school application, because you need to get a judge and to make a decision, you might need a cafcass officer or a social worker to comment on what's in the best interests of the family, with the focus being on the child. All that process takes a huge amount of time, but this is the biggie. This is when people are coming to see us, we can't agree on the school. So under those circumstances, we make an application to court for a specific issue order. It's a certain kind of order that you get that says, you know, little Johnny goes to this secondary school, right? Okay, so applications for authorised absence from school, and the reasons for this is another one. So if your child needs to be away from school, all the parents must agree as well. Again, if not, you need to go to court, planned medical and dental treatment beyond routine checkups. So I imagine this is a more serious form of treatment, operations and things like that. An operation might be cancer treatment. It might be radiotherapy, chemotherapy

Sarah Elizabeth  38:42

decisions about transplants and things like that, like huge things. Yeah,

Rebecca Baker  38:46

one case that I had that spring to mind was my lady saw the child was autistic, and Dad absolutely refused to accept it. Oh, so it's quite common this actually, when one parent just doesn't accept there's an issue, especially with anything neurodiverse, often it's it's like, well, this behaviour is presenting itself when our child is in my care, but the other parent will say, Well, no, I I don't see that behaviour, and I don't agree with what you're saying. And then you've got that big not only have you got a child struggling, you've got parents disagreeing on the reason for that struggle. And this one case that brings to mind was so mum got the diagnosis that the child had autism, and the doctors prescribed certain medication to help manage this, and so she gave the child the medication, and then dad wasn't giving the child the medication, because he was saying, well, actually, when our son comes to me, he's fine, but the reason he was fine was because the mom had been giving him his medication, and then the child goes to dad, fine because. Has been medicated, and then dad doesn't give him the medicine, and then he comes back and he's is presenting the behaviour that mum's worried about because he's not being given his meds. And that was a court application, obviously, because the judge had to say, this child needs to have their medicine, that that's it. They have to listen to the evidence of both sides, including medical evidence, and make a decision. So again, try and agree it.

Sarah Elizabeth  40:27

It's hard, isn't it? Wow. Okay,

Rebecca Baker  40:29

it's really hard, really hard. This is an interesting one that's on the list circumcision and sterilisation of a child. I mean, that's really extreme, isn't it? She normally carried out where parents agree, or where a court in settle in a dispute with them, decides the operation as in the child's best interests. This is an interesting one, and one that's a little bit more common immunisation against childhood diseases. Oh yes, interesting that. So that's kind of there was the big scandal about, was it? MMR, the MMR, recently, COVID 19, you know, parents disagreeing with children being immunised by a newly discovered disease. You know, one person believes in the vaccine, the other person's saying, No way. Do I want my child to receive that. But you can see why parties have to agree on that it's different from should they meet, because it's an actual surgical intervention, isn't it? So in those circumstances, we've got to get the court to decide, oh,

Sarah Elizabeth  41:35

okay, unless

Rebecca Baker  41:37

both parties agree.

Sarah Elizabeth  41:38

That's been a huge thing for adults and children, isn't it about the COVID vaccine.

Rebecca Baker  41:44

I didn't experience that personally, but I do have some colleagues who I know went through court applications of that. Another interesting is stopping prescribed medication for a child. You both need to agree to stop something which, again, is interesting. I guess somebody thinks something's not working, the other parent disagrees and wants to carry on. Everybody's got different perspectives. They can't agree. The court has to decide in those circumstances. Now, this one is on the list, and I don't know if it's right, but it's another interesting one, the age at which a child should be able to watch videos recommended for children over the age of 12 and 18. I'm not sure how that found its way onto the list, but it's Wow. You see, I would say that that's more in the category of what's at our house and what's at their house. It seems to travail an issue that to go to court on the basis of, let's make an application to court, because the child's been allowed to watch over 18 videos. Yeah, it's there,

Sarah Elizabeth  42:51

I suppose over 18 video games as well. Yeah,

Rebecca Baker  42:56

possibly, yeah. So this is another biggie. There's two more biggies that I'll finish win with. This is the one that I've dealt with more than anything. Change of a child's surname.

Sarah Elizabeth  43:05

Okay,

Rebecca Baker  43:08

yep, I've had many a scrap about that. Do you know what the court does? What does the court do? Yeah, double barreled surname. And then there's usually a row about whose surname goes first. Which is what? Which is why you have to have a hyphen to stop one person saying he's a middle name and is just, oh my goodness, yeah. So the change of child's surname is one of the biggest ones I've come across over the years. Really, that's when I've got to court, and it's usually on the back of something else as well. There's usually a dispute regarding contact or where the child should live, and the surname that is part of parcel the whole thing. And the final one, and this is one that I've dealt with quite a few times over the years, usually with heartbreaking results, is a relocation to another part of England and Wales, all overseas. Yeah. Now, in theory, if you're going abroad, the case is called pain versus pain, which I always think is apt, was that their surname was P, A, y, N, E, yeah. That's where all the rules are. If a parent can persuade the court that it is better for the child and they can offer a better standard of living to move away to a different country, then they can often be successful if they provide compelling evidence, because they don't want to take away from one person and the family as a whole, that right to a new life and a new experience in a different country. So I always say to a client when they've got this issue to come up with, you know, look into schools. Look into quality of life. What are the local amenities? Will the house be better? Will you earn more money? Will you be at home more? Will you have a better quality of life? If you can show those things, then it's very, very common. Compelling, yeah, a compelling case to put before a judge that the child should actually move. The caveat on it, the big thing being that, if you are committed to and allow that child to spend time with the other parent through holidays, face to face contact, you know, on video, much easier now to do, provided you're committed to that element of it, and you can persuade the court that you are, then you very likely get an order. But it's one of the ones where you can imagine it is contested because I'm going to Australia. No, you know, you can't.

Sarah Elizabeth  45:39

Yes, that's such a difficult one, isn't it? I can't even imagine being in that situation.

Rebecca Baker  45:45

It's awful, isn't it? It is. Yeah. So really, the three ones that I've come across in practice are which school they attend, the relocation argument and changing the child's surname. Those are the three that come up most commonly.

Sarah Elizabeth  45:59

Yeah, wow. That's

Rebecca Baker  46:02

a lot, isn't it? That was a lot, wasn't it? Yeah,

Sarah Elizabeth  46:05

there were some surprising ones in there as well. Is it ever helpful to go to court? Or obviously, the best way is resolve conflict. I

Rebecca Baker  46:14

think that's a really difficult question. You're gonna do the lawyer. It depends. I think sometimes you have to go to court because parents can't make a objective decision on some things. Understandably, I think, when you're dealing with things like, I mean, for instance, that Jehovah's Witness example that we used earlier, you know those parents were coming from a place, and I've got absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they feel as passionately and as strongly about their child as every one of us do. But if your religious beliefs are so ingrained and a part of you that you can't agree to life saving treatment, then the judge has to make that decision. Yeah. And I think sometimes in answer to your question, a client needs to be told what to do, because they would rather be told what to do than make that decision going to the relocation example, I think people often say no because they feel like they can't say yes. The yes is inconceivable, and they can't bring themselves to say yes. You can take my child to the other side of the world, because it's going to have an impact on your time with them, inevitably, even with the best intentions and the most careful arrangements being made, it's never going to be like the person living next door to you or living in the same town or even the same county. It's going to be difficult, and it's going to drive a wedge. Could drive a wedge. So I think people can't say yes to that, yeah, do you know what I mean? So I think sometimes the court has its place because they can see it objectively. But if you ask me if the court is ever the right decision when you are having an argument about what time it should be or whether a child should go on holiday and let aside from situations where there is a genuine safeguarding reason, I think the court is never the right venue to resolve these issues, because especially if you've got to start getting into contested proceedings and giving statements and saying things about the other parent, that isn't sometimes it's fair, but isn't appropriate or kind or relevant, then those things are there forever, but it's why we use things like mediation now as an alternative form of dispute resolution. Why the courts will say we're not going to get into the he said. She said, they just simply look at this is what the first person wants. This is what the second person wants, and they'll not entertain anything other than that, accepting, safeguarding situations,

Sarah Elizabeth  49:17

amazing. So there was an awful lot of information to take in there, and I'll obviously leave that in the show notes as well the document. But if there was one thing people could take away from today, about parental responsibility, about PR I guess it would be to know the facts right and know what you can and can't do. Would that be the one thing to take away? I

Rebecca Baker  49:44

think you need to understand what parental responsibility means. And I would focus less on the rights, yep, and more on the responsibility. Yeah, of the legal concept. Yeah. And I can't emphasise this enough whenever there's a dispute, and I understand why there's disputes, but if it does happen, try and exhaust every other avenue before going to court, because an agreement reached between you is easier to apply to your life than a court imposed order. So a really good way to do it is on the cafcass website, and we can put this link in the show notes as well. There's something called a parenting plan. The Parenting Plan is a downloadable, shareable document that's free. And I think, as a matter of course, when you separate from the other person, I think it's really good thing to go through this plan together, because it brings up every situation that we've talked about today. Brings up every scenario that you'll not think of. It reminds you that there's a difference in the arrangements during term time and school holidays. And I think what you can do is methodically go through every scenario and identify where you might dispute really at the outset, and then building a workable solution for both of you. So if one of you is not happy on one particular topic, why don't you give the other person that bit and say, Yeah, let's do it your way for that particular thing. But on this way, on this topic, can we do it my way? So it's hard, it's it's hard work to do that, but it's better than having a court imposed order, because everybody's going to spend loads of money on solicitors. It's going to take 18 months to two years, and you're probably going to come out of it with a decision that you don't particularly agree with, but you're stuck with that decision. So if you can find an agreement between yourselves, even if you're not 1,000% happy with it, and even if you're compromising on some dates or not on the other that is the best outcome for your children. Yeah,

Sarah Elizabeth  52:07

I suppose it's that balance, isn't it? It's the cost of perhaps having to compromise a little, versus the financial cost, the time cost, the emotional cost of going to court, isn't it? Kind of gotta weigh that up before you go there.

Rebecca Baker  52:21

Yeah, and I think the emotional cost is often the biggest cost of all. Absolutely, couldn't agree more, because people never forget it. People talk about it all the time, even, like your adult friends when we were kids, this happened. They remember it. They are they're there, they're part of it, and they remember it all. So it's like the biggest duty of all we've got, I suppose, is to protect them from that upset.

Sarah Elizabeth  52:49

Amen, sister, love that. Thank you so much. Rebecca, it's been very informative and joyful as always. So thank you again for being here on the divorce chapter podcast for another legal chapter, and we're looking forward to having you on again soon. So if anyone does have any legal questions for Rebecca, please do shout. You can either email myself or Rebecca, and all the links for both of us are in the show notes below the episode. Wherever you listen, I will also add the documents and the links that Rebecca has mentioned today, and also in the show notes, I'm going to leave a link to a fantastic resource that Rebecca's put together on books for children through devolve. And it's so good is it covers all of the different age groups and all the different needs as well. It's really, really good, so do check that out, and then I will be back in your beautiful earbuds next time. As we continue to evolve through our divorce chapter, loads of love. Bye,

Rebecca Baker  53:55

bye.