To wonder what happens? Parents of Children commit serious crime.

Youth offenders social workers will always be involved with the criminal child

They would balance if the child would be better off with their parents, with other family or in care.
Look at the sister in adolescence. Do you think she'd be better or worse off away from her parents?

I know a family with 3 now grown up children. The parents both worked, were good people and 2 of the kids were studious, went to university, now have decent jobs, families etc, and the other became a drug addict at 17 and died of an overdose many years later. All raised in the same house. The surviving family all wonder what happened to their deceased child/sibling that made them turn out that way. It's a huge shame for everyone involved

That's similar to the questions my grandparents were left with.

4 children. All lived in a nice area and went to decent schools. Daughter got a good job and has a nice house/family etc. The 3 boys all had apprenticeships, got decent jobs, 2 joined the military one stayed in decent job. The 2 in the military had families, did well. One was later killed in a car accident.

The third was my father. Decent job, nice house, married and had 3 children. My mother had a similar upbringing. Then somehow ended up a drug addict. I was the 4th child and by the time I was born they both had drug and alcohol problems and my father had turned into a violent abuser. To the point we were removed by my grandparents when I was 7 and despite lot of DV being brushed under the carpet in the 70s and 80s they were supported in taking us.

No idea what got him into drugs and the life he then opted for.

You cannot blame a murder on the parents of a murderer any more than you can blame a murder on the wife of the murderer because she cheated on him, or the husband of a murderer because he was abusing her for the previous ten years.

Those things might be given as extenuating circumstances and cases of abuse might be investigated as their own crimes, but you can't put blame for a crime onto another (unless they are e.g. a gang boss manipulating others, but that's not what is being discussed).

I believe the opposite.

Yes, it can be a family thing but that's not necessarily always going to be true.

Also, it would be interesting to know how much impact the stigmatisation of being a sibling of someone who committed a serious crime, and the treatment of them by society, contributes to a sibling taking a wrong path in life.

The reality is that no, of course the children aren't automatically removed from their parents because you need a court order to remove children. Given that the siblings presumably haven't committed an offence, it will be the family courts making decisions about their situation and the family courts make (or at least are supposed to make) decisions in the best interests of the child. Unless the sibling's crime demonstrates that the parents are manifestly unfit to parent their other children, that's likely to be that they remain with their parents. The parents aren't "punished" for one child's crime by having the others removed or anything like that.

And yet there are children born into adverse circumstances who grow up to be the most lovely and kind humans you will ever meet.

I never blame the parents automatically. It's just not that simple. Of course a family where a child commits a serious offense will be investigated to make sure all is well, but children from very normal homes sometimes do terrible things too.

How is this a massive oversimplification given that it's a post AGAINST oversimplification?!

I agree about trauma but not all trauma starts in the home. A child can be bullied or abused outside the home. Abuse is abuse, regardless of whether it's in the home or not. The effects are no less traumatic.

Not always. Look at the case of the Southport killer. Parents did their best to get him help. He didn't engage with the help offered. That's on him or his issues. Not his parents.

I cannot be arsed to point out the bleeding obvious again, so I refer you to my post at 16:33hrs.

True, but just being a psychopath doesnt mean you are going to murder.
I believe that trauma is a massive contributing factor.

I’ve been involved in two cases where a teenage boy committed murder.
One was from an otherwise nice, normal middle class professional family. It destroyed them. and no, their younger children were not removed.
One was a boy who had experienced significant trauma, periods in care, and got involved with drugs and gangs. Once they’ve been criminally exploited, it’s so hard for them to get away from it.

It’s not just a person’s upbringing. If it was, then every child who grew up with less than perfect parents would be a criminal and those who were brought up by the equivalent of Mary Poppins would be perfectly adjusted members of society. It’s genetics as well. You can’t take one into account without considering the other.

Massive oversimplification.

It depends on the individual situation, the nature of the crime, what factors led to the crime, what actions the parents took to prevent it and what actions were taken in response to it and the implications on other children. It'll be assessed by social services depending on the nature of the crime and then a decision will be made. Either the Social Work team will decide the immediate risks are too high and will apply to the courts for removal or they'll do work with the family and see how it goes to try and improve things where they are, or they'll assess that the parents did all they could and acted appropriately and no further action will be taken outside of a support role.

There's lots of reasons why a young person might commit a crime - they may be being exploited by other people in their community and be victims themselves. They may have experienced significant trauma and been unable to regulate after that. I've worked with a number of young people who suffered from brain injuries that affected their risk assessing and understanding of consequence and led to them getting involved in criminal behaviours. Sometimes it's nothing to do with parents at all.

They'd only take away other children if there was abuse/neglect/criminal activity in the family. Not all child criminals come from abusive or neglectful homes at all.

Sometimes other children might be in danger not from their parents, but from members of the public targeting the family home because of what the criminal child has done. In those most extreme situations the whole family might need to be relocated.

In a nutshell.

It's a hugely debated topic - Nature or Nuture.

I think both can create people who do bad things. But there are other factors that affect a child's upbringing than what the parents and siblings offer.

Teenagers are massively affected by their peers and what they read on the internet etc.

I know a family with 3 now grown up children. The parents both worked, were good people and 2 of the kids were studious, went to university, now have decent jobs, families etc, and the other became a drug addict at 17 and died of an overdose many years later. All raised in the same house. The surviving family all wonder what happened to their deceased child/sibling that made them turn out that way. It's a huge shame for everyone involved

Sometimes the killer is seriously mentally ill and it's not the fault of the parents. Eg. The Nottingham killer Valdo Calocane.

I agree

OP is this hypothetical or has your child committed a crime ? If so hope you and family are ok and getting support.

If that were the case then surely all the children are potential criminals?

Yes I have. And that’s partly because I’m not a scientist, partly because I’m not talking to scientists and partly because it’s a very simple explanation used only for the intent of explaining that it is both upbringing and genetics. Nature and nurture rather than nature or nurture.

If you want a more complex explanation then read a scientific paper on the subject.