Mother, 33, to appear in court after taking her son, 6, on the 'holiday of a lifetime' to Cyprus during the school year, insists it was 'educational in a way that school cannot provide'

A mother facing court after taking her children out of school for a two-week holiday during the term has insisted the holiday was 'educational in a way that school cannot provide'.

Leah Hilton, 33, and Hayden Harrop, 30, took their two children, six and three, to Cyprus for 15 days in June 2023 for a family wedding, despite only having permission from the school for the first three days.

Mrs Hilton says her partner was fined £60 when they returned home to Gosport, Hampshire, and they paid the fine assuming that was the end of it.

However, the school says they issued two fines – one to each parent – ​​and Ms Hilton never paid her share.

She says the school promised to investigate and contact her, but she assumed the matter was resolved when she didn't hear back.

Mrs Hilton says her partner was given a £60 fine when they returned home to Gosport, Hampshire, which they paid, assuming that was the end of it.

The mother-of-two is now being taken to court after failing to pay the £60 fine, despite her claims of no-show.

Ms Hilton said: 'How can I pay a fine I didn't know I would have to pay? How is that possible?'

She added: “Hayden and I had a discussion about taking him out of school and agreed that it would be beneficial for Mason to take him out of school to gain experiences abroad.

'Tickets for the holiday were non-refundable and had already been booked. Since it was a wedding, it was a unique experience.

'We also discussed the possibility that this would impact future exams and decided that this would not be the case.

'When we were on holiday he was able to see elephants, lemurs and fruit bats up close.

'His water confidence improved and so did his mental health – it was educational in its own way, in a way that school can't provide.'

The school says they sent two fines – one to each parent – ​​and that Ms Hilton never paid her share, but she never received a fine

The mother-of-two is now being taken to court for failing to pay the £60 fine, despite her claims that it was a no-show

Ms Hilton received a Section 444 notice from Hampshire County Council, asking her to enter a plea.

She now faces a fine of up to £2,500 and a prison sentence of up to three months.

The manager says that the municipality refuses to simply let her pay the fine because it is too late.

Mrs Hilton said: 'I didn't sleep well because of this. I'm just really stressed about it and trying to get to the bottom of it.”

Ms Hilton says the holiday was 'educational in its own way, in a way that school can't provide'

Ms Hilton said: 'I've been losing sleep over this – I'm just really stressed about it and trying to get to the bottom of it.'

A spokesperson for Hampshire County Council said: 'There is well-documented research showing that gaps in school attendance can negatively impact a child's wellbeing, learning and progress.

They added: 'Department for Education (DfE) guidance is followed in advising headteachers not to authorize absences during school terms unless there are exceptional reasons to justify allowing the absence.

'Street fines for unauthorized absence can be requested by schools in line with this guidance and, if used, can be issued per parent per child.

'As is standard in most legal proceedings, the County Council provides a certificate of service as evidence that the penalty notice was served by first class post, and not that it was actually received by the recipient.

'This is accepted by the court as proof of service.

'If a fine is imposed and not paid within the specified time limits, local authorities must take steps to prosecute unless it would not be in the public interest to do so.

'There is no other flexibility for local authorities in this regard. Such legal interventions are only used as a last resort.

'It would not be appropriate to discuss individual circumstances, particularly as they may be subject to separate legal proceedings. Therefore, we cannot comment further on it.”