All parents of children must always have a fair and open say (and never be left without an impartial and independent decision) in their child’s school admissions

This is a minimum national standard (guaranteed by Parliament)

This right has the force of law since 2014

Parliament currently sets out in detail what this right means in practice [and mandatory standards in school admissions with the force of law] via publication of the Department for Education School Admissions Code (September 2021)

Welfare state benefits rules are that one individual person gets child benefit (never two persons)

Relying in any local geographic area (and/or having inflexible systems which rely) on the one eligible person who gets paid child benefit (i.e. a separate parent) so as to give any greater right to decide a child’s education to that person and to the detriment of the other eligible person who cannot be paid this welfare state benefit (i.e. a separate parent of the same child*) - where a child lives and moves between two separate parental homes - has never been the intention of Parliament for the education of children and is plainly unfair

There is no reference (whatsoever) to child benefit in the Department for Education School Admissions Code (September 2021)

Welfare state benefits and the education of children are not the same (in public policy and/or law)

This basic distinction is a child welfare issue, especially important where the Family Court has formally decided (and recognised) that neither parent has greater rights than the other (regardless of sex) for the necessary welfare of a individual child

The welfare of all children is always of the highest importance

The Family Court is the public authority which should consider (or must decide) what is necessary in the best interests of an individual child and under the welfare criteria (approved by Parliament)

The welfare of children & (the lower legal standards of) welfare state benefits are not the same (in public policy and/or law)

This is also an important issue where the child has a voice and for the rights of the child to be adequately respected (the United Kingdom is a treaty party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)

Education is a fundamental right for children and their parents/carers with responsibility.

Until 2018 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (‘the Council’) had been content to use welfare child benefit for the key purposes of its school admissions policies and procedures and not to provide any assistance to a parent/carer who did not get paid welfare child benefit for a child.

When the subject of (an individual case related) judicial review process in 2018, the Council (slowly in fourteen’s view) began to accept that certain of their policies & procedures of child education were entirely lacking in this context [so as to be inconsistent with minimum legal standards]

The Council appeared to accept that it was a wrong that a certain status of parent (who did not get paid child benefit) faced hurdles in its school admission policies & procedures which simply did not exist for any parent of a child (who did get paid child benefit)

In 2019 the Council’s Corporate Director for Children & Families decided that there were clear policy issues where individuals with shared parental responsibility live separately

In 2020 Parliament made the child welfare importance and status in a democratic society clear (and made law) of children living & moving between two parental homes during lockdown & in the pandemic

(As far as fourteen are aware) By 2021 the Council still appeared satisfied that (what had been revealed as) minor procedural changes it had (actually) brought in [via judicial review procedure and corporate complaints procedure] would respect all parents**/children where a child lives and moves between two parental homes to the minimum legal standard of school admissions

(As far as fourteen are aware) By 2021 the Council’s decision makers had not facilitated any independent review of the difficulties it perceived in working inclusively with all parents, before the Department for Education School Admissions Code (September 2021) made it clear to all, that this is mandatory and normal; notwithstanding the ‘mission statement’ of the Council and its own policies and procedures of independent oversight. The Council’s decision makers appeared content to ‘mark their own homework’.

(fourteen would express the view that) the mandatory language of the Department for Education School Admissions Code (September 2021), ‘the Code’, which makes repeated use of bold type to indicate strict adherence, gives the impression that Parliament intends to make very clear what reality it now expects (with the force of law) of all public authorities whose function is school admissions (for the benefit of all parents and children)

(As required by the Code) the purpose of school admissions is to ensure fairness and transparency for all school places

(As required by the Code) all parents have the same rights.

(As required by the Code) All “Parents are able to express a preference for at least three schools. The application can include schools outside the local authority where the child lives: a parent can apply for their child at any state-funded school in any area. If a school is undersubscribed, any parent that applies must be offered a place.”

(As stated in the Code) “Admission authorities are responsible for admissions and must act in accordance with this Code, the School Admission Appeals Code, other laws relating to admissions, and relevant human rights and equalities legislation.”

(As stated in the Code) “The Schools Adjudicator must consider whether admission arrangements referred to the Schools Adjudicator comply with the Code and the law relating to admissions … The Schools Adjudicator’s determination is binding and enforceable.”

(As stated in the Code) “Local authorities must refer an objection to the Schools Adjudicator if they are of the view or suspect that the admission arrangements that have been determined by other admission authorities are unlawful.”

(As stated in the Code) “Any person or body who considers that any maintained school or Academy’s arrangements are unlawful, or not in compliance with the Code or relevant law relating to admissions, can make an objection to the Schools Adjudicator”.

In 2022 it is now very difficult to see how any local public authority (i.e. Academy Trust, Council, GP or NHS Trust) can still claim not to understand that families (where a child lives and moves between two homes) have an equal protected status at law [with guaranteed rights & respect] from interference (as families where parents are married and all live together in a single home).

*A disproportionally high number of female parents (rather than male parents) are recipient of child benefit (where both parents are eligible to claim for child benefit)

** Male parents of a child who lives and moves between two parental homes now (arguably) have greater prospects of successful legal action against the Council (if alienated or excluded from a fair and open say in their child’s education) within the Borough

fourteen are happy to support a leading UK charity in this area. Our professional commitment is to work for an inclusive society for all.

Interested dads, mums, and grandparents may wish to visit www.fnf.org.uk

In 2022 fourteen believe that we have professional duties to continue to object, raise concerns and engage in consultation with regard to the worrying extent that we consider, school admissions in Redcar & Cleveland do remain unlawful and not in compliance with the Code or the relevant law (including the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of all children).

High Court settlement for breach of the right to life of a soldier (by the Ministry of Defence)

Training lessons to reduce risk of ‘friendly fire’ incidents (accepted by HM Government in Parliament) with a major change in the law relating to combat immunity for this specific type of case (handed down by The Supreme Court)

Illegal ‘clawback’ campaign (sponsored via the Ministry of Justice) then had to be stopped by a pro-bono legal team (including fourteen) on behalf of the family victims

Mum finally received her compensation for the death of her son - only after a further number of years on from her settlement being ordered by the High Court (when an unlawful public authority course of conduct blocking receipt did eventually fail against her and her lawyers)