Neet Truancy issue and the law
Truancy of a child may well lead to fines. Sadly a child can lead to a parent obtaining a fine. It is worth working with schools or training providers to keep this situation away from the door so to speak
To highlight the issue and the position I have added some articles from the Grimsby area as well as material from reports on the Gov .uk web site
You will see articles from 2010-12
you will see the
| Tackling truancy by targeting parents |  |  |  |
| Tuesday, 23 March 2010 16:00 |
What happens to parents who don’t send their children to school? John-Paul Swoboda looks at the options available to local authorities.
Section 444 of the Education Act 1996 created two offences for ‘failing to secure regular attendance at school of a registered pupil’.
- Section 444(1) creates the simple offence, so that if a child of compulsory school age, typically from 5 to 16, who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parents, meaning anyone with parental responsibility or who has care of the child, is guilty of an offence.
- Section 444(1A) creates the aggravated offence; if a parent knows the child is failing to attend regularly at school and fails to cause him to do so.
It also worth remembering that s. 444 covers, one, children who are educated at a place other than a school when such provision is organised by the local authority, and two, children excluded but still registered at a school, who are required by the school or local authority to attend somewhere other than a school for the provision of education, instruction or training.
Steps prior to court proceedings
It has been my experience when prosecuting s444 offences that local authorities and local educational authorities have set procedures which they carry out prior to issuing section 444 proceedings against parents. Typically a school will intervene if a child, let’s call him Charlie, is regularly failing to attend school by contacting and meeting with the parents. If this fails to improve Charlie’s attendance the school refers the matter to a local authority education officer who attempts to arrange meetings with Charlie’s family to identify why there have been absences.
If the above measures fail to bring about improvement, the different agencies will come together to decide on a plan of action. The agencies could include the school’s staff, usually the head teacher and the head of year, the local authority education officer who has been dealing with the case, a Special Educational Needs coordinator, a school governor, representatives of Social Care, members from the Youth Offending Team and members of other relevant agencies.
It is important for all options to be considered at this stage, not least as section 447 of the Education Act 1996 requires consideration to be given to an application for an Education Supervision Order under section 36 and part III of the Children Act 1989. Section 444A gives the local authority the power to issue a parent with a penalty notice if it believes an offence has been committed under section 444. Interestingly failure to comply with an Education Supervision Order by a parent is also a criminal offence under Part III of the Children Act 1989 as is failure to comply with a school attendance order under section 443 of the 1996 Education Act.
Let’s assume that all the agencies have got together and it has been decided by the local authority that Charlie’s parents or parent should be prosecuted under s. 444.
Choosing between section 444(1) or 444(1A)
The difference between s. 444(1) and s. 444(1A) is the parent(s) knowledge of Charlie’s absence from school. In other words a successful prosecution under s. 444(1) only requires that Charlie was absent from school regularly whereas a successful prosecution under s. 444(1A) would require that Charlie was absent from school regularly and that the parent knew that this was the case.
The extra step for a successful prosecution under s. 444(1A), proving that Charlie’s parents knew he was regularly absent from school, can be evidentially tricky. How does one prove that Charlie’s parents knew he was absent?
If Charlie was with his parents at times when he should have been at school, and this can be proved by evidence, perhaps by the local authority education officer’s evidence or by the parents’ evidence, then it should be possible to bring a successful prosecution under s. 444(1A).
However, if the evidence suggests that the parent(s) took the child to the school’s gate, it will be harder to prove they knew that Charlie was regularly not attending.
One other factor to take into consideration is that on a trial of an offence under s 444(1A) Education Act 1996 the court can find the parents guilty of s 444(1) if they consider the offence under s 444(1A) not to be made out.
Preparing the case
The most important document in a prosecution under s 444 is the headmaster’s certificate providing particulars of Charlie’s absence. This signed certificate will be treated, without further proof, as the document which it purports to be and as having been signed by the headmaster unless the contrary is proved. In other words, the headmaster’s certificate reverses the burden of proof, as it is taken as proving that Charlie was absent for the days stated on the certificate.
Apart from the headmaster’s certificate the local authority’s education officer should write a witness statement setting out the absences, giving the background history of support offered to the parent and exhibit all documents needed to prove the offence.
I would also recommend that the delegated powers under which the local authority’s education officer is authorised to operate, is evidenced by way of witness statement and exhibits. Otherwise a procedural point, arguing that there is no evidence that the prosecution is brought by a proper authority, may unnecessarily draw out proceedings.
How regular is regular?
This is a matter for the justices to decide in their discretion taking into account all the circumstances as the Act does not state a cut off point beyond which Charlie would automatically be considered to have failed to attend regularly. There is no case law on the point either. Given this area of ambiguity, I would not advise prosecutions where the issue of regularity of attendance is on the borderline.
Absence because of religious observance is not taken as an absence for the purposes of determining whether there has been regular absence.
The Defences
It is for the parent to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities, not for the local authority to disprove it. In practice that means if the parents raise a defence they will need to evidence it by way of oral and documentary evidence.
- Sickness: if the parents prove that Charlie was absent by reason of sickness (a doctor’s note is usually required), they will be acquitted of the offence.
- Unavoidable Cause: if the parents prove that Charlie was absent due to ‘unavoidable cause’ they will be acquitted of the offence. Unavoidable cause is not to be equated with reasonable cause (Jarman v Mid Glamorgan Education Authority [1985] LS Gaz R 1249). For example chronic illness of a parent is not an unavoidable cause (Jenkins v Howell [1949] 2 KB 218). The test is a difficult one for parents to meet.
- Transport: the local authority is also under a duty to provide suitable transport if the school is beyond walking distance – 3.218km for children under eight and 4.828km for children over eight – and if no transport has been provided this will provide a good defence.
Sentences
Upon conviction of Charlie’s parents of the s 444 (1) offence they are liable to a fine of up to £1,000 (a level 3 fine) each and of the s 444 (1A) offence they are liable to a fine of £2,500 (a level 4 fine) each or up to three months’ imprisonment. On top of which an application for the LA’s costs can also be made. Such costs should be set out in a schedule if possible.
|
Grimsby is an area with a noted Truancy problem from a report 1 year problem
N THE last academic year, 270 penalty notices were issued to parents who failed to send their children to school regularly enough.
North East Lincolnshire Council said 244 of those were for unauthorised holidays and 26 for low attendance.
Seventy-seven of those cases have been prosecuted already.
Another 22 are waiting to be heard.
The following parents are the latest to be dealt with.
Donna Hanks, 32, of Edge Avenue, Grimsby, admitted failing to send Kitana Hanks to school regularly enough between January 3 and July 24.
Eve Richardson-Smith, prosecuting for North East Lincolnshire Council, said Kitana, 15, failed to attend Tollbar Academy on 42 occasions out of 246 that the school was open – an attendance rate of only 83 per cent.
Her attendance had since improved to 91 per cent since September.
Mother-of-three Hanks told the court: "I do my best. I understand and appreciate how serious education is because I want them to have a good education."
She added that her daughter was a "15-year-old with an attitude" and that she had tried her hardest with her.
"Over the last three months, she has changed," said Hanks.
"I really have knuckled down with her.
"She is doing her best as well now. It has been difficult. There is only so far you can go to get her in school.
"I have punished her."
Hanks was given an absolute discharge, which is a conviction without penalty.
Other parents dealt with in their absence were:
Helen Brown, 41, of College Street, Cleethorpes – admitted failing to send Lauren Brown to school regularly enough between December 17 and July 24.
Lauren, 14, failed to attend Cleethorpes Academy on 88 occasions out of 256 – an attendance rate of only 66 per cent.
Brown told the court by letter she had been suffering from depression and, most of the time, she found it hard to get even herself out of bed.
She accepted it was her responsibility to get her daughter to school.
Brown was fined £55 and was ordered to pay £75 costs and a Government-imposed £15 victims' surcharge.
Rachel Hambling, 35, of Spring Bank, Grimsby, admitted failing to send Jak Melin to school regularly enough between January 28 and May 24.
Jak, 15, failed to attend John Whitgift Academy on 54 occasions out of 132 – an attendance rate of only 59 per cent.
Hambling, previously known as Rachael Melin, claimed in a letter that she had done everything she could to get her son to school after he refused to go there. She had been in "constant contact" with the academy and had always fully co-operated.
Her son had since been removed from the academy and was being "home-schooled" until he could go to college. Mother-of-two Hambling was fined £145 and was ordered to pay £75 costs and a £20 victims' surcharge.
Vicki Smith, 27, of Brereton Avenue, Cleethorpes, failed to send Jessica Roche to school regularly enough between February 25 and June 21.
The case was found proved in her absence.
Jessica, 6, failed to attend Lisle Marsden Primary Academy, Grimsby, on 21 occasions out of 134 – an attendance rate of only 84 per cent.
Jessica's attendance had since improved to 100 per cent, the court heard.
Smith was given a six-month conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £75 costs and a £15 victims' surcharge.
Emma Gladding, 42, and Kevin Gladding, 48, of Station Road, North Thoresby, failed to send Hannah Gladding to school between May 20 and 24.
The cases were found proved in their absence.
They took Hannah, 15, out of Tollbar Academy for a holiday when permission had not been authorised. They did not pay a penalty notice.
They were each fined £120 and were both ordered to pay £30 costs and a £20 victims' surcharge.
Parental sanctions
Recommendation 11: That the system of fines is changed to make it simpler for schools
and local authorities to use and for parents to understand. Parents who allow their child
to miss too much school should receive a fine of £60. If they fail to pay within 28 days
then the fine should double to £120 and the money should be recovered directly through
their child benefit. Where parents who do not receive child benefit fail to pay fines they
would be recovered through the county court. In addition, the local authority should
continue to have the right to take persistent offenders to court, but magistrates will be
aware that a fine will have been paid for previous offences and therefore their response
needs to be firm. Recommendation 12: Persistent failure to send children to school is a clear sign of
neglect and children’s social care services should work with schools to address
underlying difficulties.
Recommendation 13: That Academy chains, sponsors and individual schools are
allowed to prosecute their pupils’ parents for poor attendance
Aspects of parental responsibility convered here-
Parental sanctions
19. Parents have the legal responsibility to ensure their children attend school from
age 5 to 16 where they are registered. There are many reasons why parents fail to send
a child to school regularly. The best schools work with their parents to improve
attendance and they offer a wide range of support to help them get their children to
school. Fining parents or taking them to court is a last resort that schools and EWOs use
only very reluctantly when all else has failed. However, when they do so the system must
be efficient and effective.
20. When attendance falls schools can use the legal system to punish parents who fail
in this duty, but this process is protracted and inconsistent. For most schools and LAs
legal intervention is the end of a process that has seen the parent and child offered a
range of support. Schools or local authorities may impose a fixed penalty notice (FPN) on
parents whose child is not attending regularly. The parent has 28 days to pay a fine of
£50; if they fail then it is doubled. After 42 days if the parent has not paid then the school
or LA has to withdraw the penalty notice and the parent is then prosecuted under section
444 of the Education Act 1996. Currently 50-60 per cent of FPNs are paid.
21. The process of taking a parent to court is cumbersome and expensive. During my
review, when I met magistrates, schools and education welfare officers, they frequently
expressed frustration with a system that takes up to six months to get a parent to court
.
22. One magistrate explained how parents could exploit the system by first pleading
not guilty, then failing to attend court when they were summoned and finally not paying
any fine imposed by the magistrate. These attendance cases compete for limited court
time with a wide range of other offences.
23. Only a council can prosecute a parent under section 444 and, if the borough
solicitor does not prioritise these cases, then they can take months to come to court.
When parents are found guilty under section 444 the punishment imposed by the court
varies hugely. One education welfare officer told me that whenever she sees one of the
two local district judges presiding she knows the parent will only receive a conditional
discharge, regardless of the circumstances of the case. Another said a magistrate had
imposed one day’s court detention for a mother of a Year 9 child who had not been at
school for over a year. When after forty-five minutes she said she had to pick up another
of her children the magistrate let her go.
24. In 2010, out of 9,147 parents taken to court and found guilty only 6,591 received a
fine or a more serious sanction. The average fine imposed by the court was £165. In the
review EWOs commented that within certain groups of parents the word has spread that
prosecution for bad attendance is a muddled process in which there is a good chance of
getting off without sanction
Parental sanctions
Recommendation 11: That the system of fines is changed to make it simpler for schools
and local authorities to use and for parents to understand. Parents who allow their child
to miss too much school should receive a fine of £60. If they fail to pay within 28 days
then the fine should double to £120 and the money should be recovered directly through
their child benefit. Where parents who do not receive child benefit fail to pay fines they
would be recovered through the county court. In addition, the local authority should
continue to have the right to take persistent offenders to court, but magistrates will be
aware that a fine will have been paid for previous offences and therefore their response
needs to be firm. Recommendation 12: Persistent failure to send children to school is a clear sign of
neglect and children’s social care services should work with schools to address
underlying difficulties.
Recommendation 13: That Academy chains, sponsors and individual schools are
allowed to prosecute their pupils’ parents for poor attendance
Parental sanctions- or fine
Recommendation 11: That the system of fines is changed to make it simpler for schools
and local authorities to use and for parents to understand. Parents who allow their child
to miss too much school should receive a fine of £60. If they fail to pay within 28 days
then the fine should double to £120 and the money should be recovered directly through
their child benefit. Where parents who do not receive child benefit fail to pay fines they
would be recovered through the county court. In addition, the local authority should
continue to have the right to take persistent offenders to court, but magistrates will be
aware that a fine will have been paid for previous offences and therefore their response
needs to be firm.
Recommendation 12: Persistent failure to send children to school is a clear sign of
neglect and children’s social care services should work with schools to address
underlying difficulties.
Recommendation 13: That Academy chains, sponsors and individual schools are
allowed to prosecute their pupils’ parents for poor attendance
