Letter Recieved from Solicitor representing my Daughters Mother

I require advice on responding to a letter I received from a solicitor representing my daughters mother. The letter is baseless and full of false allegations that I have drafted a response too. I’ve done research, gathered info from govt websites, gained professional advice from other teachers and carers to support my response. I have not enrolled Kady in a School in Peterhead where I live, She lives in longside with her Mum most of the time (no court or formal arrangement) and she should goto School there. Current arrangements have not been an issue for 18 months and suddenly we disagree on School matter and without consulting me i receive this letter blown way out of proportion and also contact ftom CMS. I have never missed a payment, and my Mum my daughters Grandmother helps me with nursery runs and care after nursery whilst I am at work which my ex knows and again hasnt been an issue and even still she picks my daughter up from their as recent as yesterday. This All in an attempt to discredit me. Please see below the letter i received, then see my drafted response.

Dear Mr. ???

mothers name

daughters name Kady and dob

This firm has been instructed by your ex-partner Ms. ????

We are advised that there is a dispute around where and when Kady should go to school.

Our client has been advised by your daughters nursery that because of her age and stage (having a December birthday), she would be better starting school in 2026. Your disagree and have enrolled her to start primary school in Peterhead this year. This was without our client’s agreement. We understand that you have said that if she disagrees, you will have full-time care of her.

Our client does not consider that this is in your daughters best interests to commence school in Peterhead this year. Leaving aside that it is not in her catchment, they are well placed to consider how appropriate it is that she start school this year. I understand that you have now met with the nursery and will no doubt consider your position based on that.

Further, we understand that your daughter has primarily resided with our client since your separation in 2023. It is not for you to dictate that if you disagree over schooling, Kady will reside with you. That is not the present arrangement, nor does our client agree to that. We are advised that although you have 5 nights of residential contact in 14, that contact does not take place at your property but at your mother’s. Our client is unaware of

why that is or if you are there for the duration of contact. In any event, it is clear that you are not looking after Kady presently without your mother’s assistance.

In the event that you cannot agree the arrangements for Kady’s schooling, our client will require to deal with matters by applying to the court for a specific issue order. Her preference is not to have to do this but rather to resolve matters amicably. She would also wish to have matters of Kady’s ordinary place of residence and contact arrangements formalized in an agreement.

Please take this letter to your own solicitor so that we may commence correspondence with them.

Failing a response within 14 days, we may take steps on our client’s behalf to place the matter of a specific issue in court

without further notice.

This letter is written entirely without prejudice to our client’s whole rights and pleas and is not to be founded upon in any court proceedings which may follow hereon, except at her instance.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas A. Mullen

My drafted response ……… that i have documents of evidence to support

Re: Your Letter Dated 17th January 2025 Regarding Kady Rachel Park

Dear Mr. Mullen,

This letter is written on a without prejudice basis to address the matters raised in your letter dated 17th January 2025. My aim is to engage constructively and work toward a resolution that prioritizes the welfare of Kady Rachel Park.

The only issue requiring discussion is the timing of Kady’s school enrollment. Regarding the other allegations, I must note that this is the first time such concerns have been raised in the 18 months since our separation. These claims are categorically untrue.

Your client’s suggestion to delay Kady’s school start by an additional year lacks professional justification or evidence. Starting school at the usual age ensures that Kady remains aligned with her peers, supporting her social and academic development. Postponing her enrollment would mean Kady is six years old for most of her Primary 1 year (201 days), which could isolate her socially and hinder her progress. Conversely, nursery attendance for another year would result in her spending most of that time as a five-year-old, which is the intended developmental age for Primary 1. Government guidelines support school entry at the usual age unless exceptionalcircumstances exist, and no credible evidence has been provided to suggest that Kady’s case warrants deviation.

After consulting with staff at Longside Primary School’s nursery, I’ve been informed they do not give specific advice about delaying school enrollment. Their role is limited to providing options and outlining potential outcomes, without expressing preferences or taking sides. If your client has obtained credible advice supporting a delayed start, I invite you to provide it. In the absence of such evidence, the argument for delay appears based solely on personal preference, which does not align with Kady’s best interests.

I must also express concern regarding your client’s unilateral decision to involve the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) without prior discussion. While CMS serves an important role, private arrangements allow for flexibility, particularly in accommodating short notice care changes. For instance, as recent as 20th

January 2025, I cared for Kady to enable your client to attend an appointment, demonstrating the benefits of cooperative arrangements. I remain committed to reimbursing missed payments due to my unemployment by

the end of this tax year, which your client was made aware of but has not responded. This needlessly disruptive action coupled with the impulsive decision to contact your firm, appears to be a desperate attempt

to cast doubt on my reputation, question my integrity, and discredit my character without justification. Such behaviour demonstrates a lack of consideration for the potential consequences, your client prioritizes for

personal preferences above all else. While the negative impact on me and her mother is notable, what truly matters most is the significant harm this all could unnecessarily cause our daughter, Kady.

In conclusion, I remain open to formalizing the current (positively active and unchallenged for 18 months) arrangements privately and cooperatively, focusing on Kady’s stability and welfare, any deviation to current arrangements is cause for unnecessary disruption and could affect Kady negatively. Decisions regarding Kady's schooling do not need to be finalized until April; however, in the absence of compelling evidence, standard guidelines should prevail, and Kady should join her peers in Primary 1 at Longside Primary School in August 2025.

   I trust this letter will be received in good faith and in the spirit of resolving

this matter privately, amicably and formally. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

my name.

Does this seem ok to respond with or anything that you would change / take out / add in etc ? I really cant afford a solicitor.