Mum changed son's surname on school records violating 3 acts, here's police response

[dazed]

Late last year, the mother of my son changed my son's surname at school, in violation of a court order. Later that same week, I spoke to him in passing, but because she was present and clearly annoyed that her name-change had been thwarted, she reported me to the police and they immediately arrested me (for the first time in my life - covered in other thread).

So I checked the exact same court order that she had used against me, and found that she had also violated it with the name change, so I put the following in writing to the police:

The child welfare officer of (my son's school) has reported to me that it had been discovered that the mother of my son had written in a request which resulted in a change to my son's surname from
"XXXX" to "YYY" on the school registers and systems. Note that this is distinct from an informal "known as" name, and therefore breaks the following laws as I am the father with full parental responsibility, and therefore 3 offences have been committed:

• Regulation 5(1)(a) of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006
• Sections 13(1), 14C(3) and 33(7) of the Children Act
• A distinct court order currently in force which states that: “While a child arrangements order is in force in respect of a child nobody may cause the child to be known by a new surname without the consent of everybody with parental responsibility”.

I have since been in contact with [Assistant Headteacher] who was very apologetic and I have been assured that my son's name has now reverted to his legal name. At this time I do not currently want any action taken against the school, as I currently believe this to be a genuine mistake on their part. I am greatly concerned for the effect this will have on my son's welfare and it is clear that the mother of my son knowingly acted illegally and in clear violation of the above acts and court orders in effect at that time and currently.

And this was their response just now:

In relation to the report you have made to police on [xxx] we have consulted with our legal services department and they have come back with the following advice;

The regulations cited, in Wales the Education (Pupil Registration) (Wales) Regulations 2010 apply. These regulations concern the records schools need to keep about the children in attendance.

The process is therefore civil, if there isn’t a deed poll and/ or Court Order the name hasn’t formally changed. The parents should take their own private advice from a family law lawyer.

The police log will now be closed.

I don't understand this. The order says: "nobody may cause the child to be known by a new surname...".

I was focussing on the act of the mother, the police have changed the focus to be on the school record-keeping in regards to one particular act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2010/1954/made

But the Education Regulations and Children Act I quoted seem to also apply to Wales as well, so surely they are not superseded by the act the police quoted?

And if changing a child's surname at a school on all the records, workbooks, canteen swipe-card systems, reports and name teachers call him by isn't "changing his name" then what is?!

What should be my response to the police closing this (bearing in mind I can't afford an expensive family law solicitor)

[des8]

The Regulations you referred to are more properly: "the Education (Pupil Registration)(England) Regulations 2006
and do not apply here in Wales

The Childrens Act 2004 the sections 13(1), 14C(3) only apply in England
Section 33 has been replaced by sections within "the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014(Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2016.

As the Court order is from a family court the police are correct in advising you that it is a civil matter

No [point in pursuing it with the police

[dazed]

Ugh. OK, but what I still don't understand is that she broke the exact same order was used to arrest me.

My ex, having a lot of money to spend on spite, didn't just get a restraining order, but she then spent over a year repeatedly applying to the family court until she got what she wanted, which was a non-mol which exactly mirrored the restraining order (which I've been told is highly unusual in such a "mild" case). Which is why she was able to claim 2 breaches for one event. This being private family court with no legal aid, I was on my own and got totally rinsed.

It took the judge 6 months to actually deliver the order, and 218 days to deliver the transcript of the judgement, which was full of REALLY weird stuff like this:

I have a statement that has been filed by the Mother in this matter. I presume, unless she tells me otherwise, it was a statement that she drafted herself. It is very comprehensive. It deals with all the matters that are before the Court and is in accordance with what I requested her to do at the last hearing, for which I am grateful. Contained within that body of the statement are many references to my judgment. I do not think I have ever seen one of my judgments referred to by as many footnotes in somebody’s statement before, which made me blush a little.

"The position of [XXXX] is entirely on all fours with those that employ her, as one may expect, although it is not always the case."

Made him blush? On all fours?! Oh, and there's an S91(14) thrown in for good meausure because "she who made him blush" asked for it, even though he noted I had never made an application of my own. Again, does this seem weird?

I also made an order against the father pursuant to Section 91(14) of the Children Act that was to last for a period of two years. The magic in that number deriding from the fact that (name 1) was due to transition to high school at the end of this academic year. At the time that I made that order, he had one final year to go at (school 1) before transferring to (school 2)

He still takes issue with the fact that there is a 91(14) order that prevents him from making further applications without the leave of the Court, and he insists that the Mother should also be the subject of a 91(14) order. The father still dwells upon the fact that he has not made repeated applications to the Court, and in fact he had not made any, that is entirely right. But of course, when one reads the case authorities that pertain to the making of a 91(14) order, there is no prerequisite that there have to be repeat applications before the Court.

It is a matter for the mother whether she wishes to bring an application shortly before then for an extension to that. Indeed, she is also entitled to bring any extension she seeks in respect of the 91(14) Order. That is not an invitation to her to make further applications, I just remind her of her entitlement in any event.

Again, should it be up to the judge to remind a well-represented client with a barrister present or her rights, in a case where the respondent is an unrepresented LIP?

[des8]

A 91(14) order doesn't forbid just "further " orders, but any orders;
Here's the actual wording:"
On disposing of any application for an order under this Act, the court may (whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application) order that no application for an order under this Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.

I think that part of your problem is being a layman you are not conversant with the language and procedures of court.
For example the phrase "On all fours" is often used to signify an argument is in agreement with cases with a similar precedent.
I should think his comment that he blushed is an attempt at a humorous aside and judges often comment that a party could deal with their matter in a different way, even to solicitors and barristers.

I assume, without seeing the whole judgment, that the judge has tried to explain the reasons and ramifications for his decision and as such I don't find his comments as posted as being odd or out of order