AIBU to think nursery alone is not enough support for poor parenting/ neglect?

I think society has become too focused on everything being personalised and meeting each individual need. It’s seen all the time in here, children not having their specific individual needs met - NO child has that. The problem is too big, there will never be enough resources either financial or manpower to tackle this.

This. Human society works based on collective need, not individual. This drive for the collective good is what allows us to protect & support the most vulnerable in a way other species do not - in the animal kingdom species that require very specific individual adaptations and conditions for survival tend to be "survival of the fittest" and weaker individuals don't make it.

Fwiw you’re wrong about who receives 2 yo place. My dc had it simply because I was a single parent in a low income. They led lovely full lives outside of nursery and no ASN. You’re not wrong about the rest though. I work in a school in a deprived area and many of the families are as you describe. I spend my days writing wellbeing concerns for multiple dc that never get picked up by any outside agencies. Dc coming to school in winter with no socks or coat, sleeping and impossible to wake as they have been up all night, 6 year olds getting themselves up and dressed and to school while the adults are still asleep in bed. Your example is kind of the tip of the iceberg. I’m not even sure how life is going to look in a few years but there isn’t the resources to help all these dc outside of school so we do our best in.

I'm talking about all kinds of things. We all grow up in different cultures with different norms. Almost all of us will have learned ideas or practices that aren't ideal and potentially damaging to us or our children.

Personally I think keeping children at home without sufficient enrichment falls into this category. It isn't exactly good for the child is it or the adults for that matter? It's much harder to fit in the physical activity and mental stimulation cooped up in a house for hours on end. If you are surrounded by family and friends that all live like this though it's likely that you don't see anything wrong with it.

I am not entirely sure sending kids to nurseries is the panacea its made out to be either.

Full time, 10 hour day nurseries for under 3s were much rarer in the 80s when I was a child. As provision of these long hours nurseries has exploded in the last 20 years and more and more parents return to full time work when children are still very young, we have also seen a huge rise in:

• children with behavioural problems
• children arriving to start school not potty trained and lacking independent skills
• children with anxiety problems
• children who struggle with emotional regulation

To me the two are not unrelated. Even an excellent nursery is no substitute for family based care with a single care giver in the early years. My view is that small settings such as home based childminders with a more family style mixed age group if children, are a better provision of childcare for the under 3s. There also needs to be more encouragement of parents of younger children working reduced hours to ensure children aren't in nurseries or settings for 10 hour days 5 days a week.

Its too much. I do not judge parents at all who choose this, I know for most its a sensible choice for family income snd preserving a career and pension. I just don't think it's what is best for children's development.

I think society has become too focused on everything being personalised and meeting each individual need. It’s seen all the time in here, children not having their specific individual needs met - NO child has that. The problem is too big, there will never be enough resources either financial or manpower to tackle this.

Therefore there needs to be a plan where the best possible interventions are available at best value. So subsidised nursery seems a good solution. It takes the child away from the problem ie the parents (note the plural) which let’s face can potentially never be solved, and places them in a better environment.

Society needs to accept that it cannot give every child the same ‘ideal’ upbringing. It cannot level the playing field by throwing money at an issue. It can discourage people from having more children, lifting the 2 child cap was a bad move imo. We haven’t accept that for some people money spent on the wider good is better than individuals getting it in their pocket. Giving a parent money and suddenly expecting them to step up, buy a toothbrush, help their child clean their teeth when they havebt before is a waste, combining that money and doing it at nursery isn’t. This has to be alongside the messsge that sending your child to school not knowing how to clean their teeth, use cutlery, put their coat on is neglect (SEN excluded obvs).

I can speak from personal experience because I have poor executive functioning myself due to ADHD, although I have a better handle on things now which I think is because I'm fortunate enough to have intelligence on my side as well as a DH who is better organised than me, ADHD medication and I know/understand what I'm dealing with and don't make excuses for it to myself any more. When my eldest was younger though I was absolutely in a hole with the typical messy house, lack of routine, even the ill advised pets featured though I did see sense and re-home them.

My mum also probably struggles with executive functioning and so I learnt from childhood that it was normal to leave washing up piled up until you needed the specific thing you wanted, to need to clear a space before preparing food, it was normal for floors to be gritty and covered in cat hair and for there to be a general layer of grot over everything, normal for flies to constantly be around in summer, for bedding not to be changed for weeks and for there to be clutter everywhere. I didn't see my house as dirty when I was growing up, I thought it was normal and other people's houses were extra clean.

That's not really cultural but it is something that I took for granted and didn't try to change in my adult life until much later. Cultural perhaps refers to looser timings around meals and bedtimes. Which can work if other things are all in place but will probably contribute to difficulty if they are not. Or it could mean more of not a geographical culture but a culture of acceptance/normality along family/friends. If DH had grown up in a more organised household I expect he would have run a mile when he saw the way I lived, which means that people who live chaotically tend to socialise or get into relationships in particular, mainly with people who have similar lives. The fact that my MIL and my own mum have similarly presenting homes probably is what initially didn't put him off, and I think it could have gone either way for us if I had been less aware of what I needed to do or he had been less confident to tell me when he felt unhappy.

but also a cultural link in that this way of living isn't considered unusual or wrong

You're not talking about not getting out and doing activities with kids are you ? As that's all I've really gathered from this thread

I agree with everything you've written and I think the childhood trauma of growing up in a household like this and not having a good parenting role model exacerbates this further. The fact that it's pervasive in some families makes me wonder if there is a genetic link (which would make sense with ADHD etc) but also a cultural link in that this way of living isn't considered unusual or wrong.

I also recognise the difficulties you describe in trying to make a difference. It extends so far beyond money or even the levels of support that most public bodies can offer such as schools and nurseries that you wonder how we can tackle these families properly? A few books and a parenting course simply won't cut the mustard. Being someone who supports a family like this, I know that any progress made is so often short lived and the children lose out on so much. The families I know often have more than an average amount of children too so this adds to the chaos and again, they seem unable to comprehend that a family that is already struggling shouldn't have more children or pets they are responsible for.

For anyone that's never experienced a family like this, I suggest looking at videos from the Austin family on Tiktok. They are more extreme than the families I know but have all the same hallmarks. Too many pets/children, living in chaos, overcrowded etc

I suppose nursery will make a big difference

This "chaos cycle" is executive dysfunction. I see it a lot supporting people with ADHD online. It's extremely destructive.

If you have poor executive functioning skills (which are not only caused by ADHD, it can also be things like FASD, PTSD, general low IQ/learning difficulties, severe depression, epilepsy, acquired head injury, drug or alcohol abuse, among other things - some of this can be caused by the results of childhood neglect as well) then you will struggle to maintain habits and routines or to think ahead and anticipate/plan for the future. People who struggle with executive functioning tend to have poor impulse control and essentially live very much in the moment with a sense of not really being in control and feeling that things just happen to them.

This has a knock on effect on the environment because of things like disorganisation, but also because of decisions that have been made where the consequences haven't been thought through like getting a pet for example.

That disorganised environment then makes it even harder to maintain habits, routines, or meet basic needs like feeding or cleaning yourself, let alone more complex tasks like helping children with homework or performing household maintenance. And it may make you feel depressed, hopeless or ashamed. All of these things in turn make executive functioning worse, contributing to further degradation of the environment which makes the problems worse etc etc in a kind of downward spiral.

Any attempt to fix any part of it is usually short-lived due to the fact that maintaining progress requires a fair amount of executive functioning but also because there are so many issues adding to the chaos that trying to solve one area of chaos feels like shovelling snow while it's still snowing. Or because they are trying to fix everything at once and this is impossible so they just fix little bits which get instantly undone and the whole thing feels hopeless. You can go in as an outside helper, with a metaphorical snowplough and clear a whole area but because of the executive dysfunction it will be full of chaos again within a day or two. A clean slate doesn't stay clean unless you can address the underlying problem.

There are some things which do help though. Appropriate medication for any conditions e.g. ADHD or epilepsy and possibly mental health conditions can help a lot. I would strongly suggest anyone in this cycle ought to be referred or at the very least given a screener for ADHD (the ASRS is the usual one). Understanding what executive functioning is and how it affects day to day life can be really helpful because that makes it clear what needs to be externalised (e.g. time cues).

Breaking the above cycle means breaking the chaos down into different areas (e.g. laundry/sleep/food/routines) and working solidly on one at a time, understanding that while you're working on the first couple you're not going to see any real results from this because you're only taking away one "snow cloud" but the other 99 are still snowing. You do start to get progress once you've cleared a few, which starts to slowly lift the burden on all of the other things but it takes time and sustained effort at one thing, not a lot of random, uncoordinated efforts at different things. And most people need moral and/or practical support during this process because it can all start to unravel very quickly.

That’s MN though. A lot of posters would start an argument in an empty room! And the truth is, even if we do judge and finger wag and shake our heads (and many do and will) it doesn’t actually change anything.

Parenting is really, really hard. I am fairly well educated; I was never going to be a brain surgeon or a scientist or anything, but I have a degree, have a house full of books, on paper should be able to make a go of it, but jeez some days it’s a disaster. And that’s with a car, access to enough money that I am able to pay for classes and so on.

My DD (now nearly three) had a phase of pram refusal and wanting to be carried. Fine as it was only for short periods but if I didn’t have a car, if I needed to walk to the shops or to do anything and I needed her in the pram I can see how I might have resorted to a phone. (One of the main reasons I have never considered this is that I would judge myself actually!)

And things do quickly become a habit. I had a resistant DD to potty training; she ceded quite quickly if permitted to watch bebefinn on the tv as a well done for wee wees on potty. Two months later and I’m still trying to get rid of bloody bebefinn. (Although she does know her dinosaurs as a result, I will give her that.)

I do find these sorts of posts a bit difficult though, because bar neglect or cruelty we do have the right to bring our children up in a way we choose, that reflects our own values and beliefs, and these don’t have to be overwhelmingly middle class.

There already are schemes that give literacy packs 2/3 times in primary school that contain books, story cubes etc. I have 2 kids so ended up with 6 of these packs.

This is a vote bribe by the SNP to give every child a bag with basic materials for starting school. Instead of actually equipping schools to do their job well.

But genuinely what is going to help her? She cannot be that ignorant to the basic needs of a child, if she isn’t willing to give them a decent life then at a certain point why are we pretending a parenting class will help? At least in childcare they’re being fed, stimulated and loved.

When mine were little there were quite a few toddler activities which were free/£1 & those struggling would have been allowed in for free. I live in a village with all backgrounds - but it was pretty much all middle class Mums. We had very little money spare so I would go to all the ones we could manage & didn’t really do soft play.

In school hols they also ran sessions for free & would put on coaches for people to take children out to seaside, into town etc but again it was always middle class Mums who signed up. So they stopped in the end as it wasn’t helping the right people.

I don’t think it’s a money issue as those people who weren’t interested in toddler sing & sign or a play group would go to more expensive attractions & soft play - both cost a lot more. They just weren’t fussed about the cheap/free activities.

There are some children in the village we never saw until school started & even then they don’t do any activities in the village eg footie, rugby, going to park, cycle path etc. so they must spend a lot more time home or in houses nearby. I don’t really know how you can force them out tbh.

While I agree with you to some extent. The literacy trust estimate is 1:10 kids have never owned a book so the book bugs bags are fantastic. They can’t just give them to the people who need them most as it would be hard to identify and seen as stigmatising. If they have to give out 9 that aren’t needed to get that one kid then it’s probably still economical because publishers etc donate the books or supply then at extremely low cost.

Local council services are in their knees. When I had my dc (in Scotland) there were more HV home visits and more children’s centres with mum & baby classes etc. HV and SS would very strongly encourage parents they were concerned about to attend. And everything was free for those targeted parents.
We have a HUGE crisis in local govt funding in Scotland and I believe it’s worse in England (it certainly is in the area I work in).

I don't think I said that there was a golden age ...there have always been neglected children. But you see it all the time on here...dont judge, its a snapshot, you dont know. Its amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid saying yeah, thats shit, lazy parenting and its not always a snapshot, there isn't always SEN, usually people haven't just been fired or lost a parent or been divorced. Every thread where someone says 'I saw child being ignored on bus/ cafe etc and given a phone' is FULL of excuses and a forensic pick apart of the OPs circumstances rather than an honest discussion about how we actually do know that for loads of kids its the default and the more we learn about dopamine addiction and brain plasticity the worse it is. But dont judge cos reasons.

And when was this wonderful age where children were protected and prioritised, never dirty, cold, neglected or under stimulated?

Tbh I didn’t really like taking my two out either. I did, because the alternative (staying home with them) was worse! But I can quite see how if I’d been reliant on public transport it would have been easier not to bother. I lost my confidence when dd was a newborn and I couldn’t get ds to leave a park.

If we are serious about this then we have to consider some radical interventions as ultimately it boils down to the children's rights to a decent childhood free of neglect or worse versus the adults rights to be parents.

I think there is often a naive assumption that the link between poverty and poor outcomes is causal. That it's just the lack of money within a household that's causing the issues and if you could just lift the family out of poverty then everything would be much better. In my experience the reality is far more nuanced than this and their intergenerational cycles to break, basic life and parenting skills to be learnt and cultural norms to challenge.

I know a few families like the one you describe OP and the thing I find most frustrating is that the biggest issue for most of them is simply the chaotic way in which they live. They simply don't seem capable of getting themselves into a decent routine that would support raising children and the chaos that surrounds them is so damaging to the children. Nobody can find anything in the house, mealtimes are all over the place, pets aren't looked after properly and are eating/peeing on clothes.... Money won't fix this

There is high quality long term evidence that nursery access does make a big difference to children from disadvantaged homes, whereas the other stuff suggested to be funded instead can be quite hit or miss.

The main problem with poor parenting/neglect is that the reasons this happens are hugely complex. It's not as simple as giving people advice (most of the time) and to be totally honest, I would be extremely surprised if genuinely nobody has given her advice. My experience is usually that the person is given advice but they hear it as criticism. Or it happens as part of a larger conversation, and they remember other parts of the conversation but miss/forget the advice. Or they dismiss it, thinking it doesn't apply to them and then forget the interaction. Or they do take it on board but because of various (usually complex) reasons, they are unable to implement it for very long or at all. For similarly complex reasons they may be unreliable narrators. Seeming unaware of basic parenting ideas does not mean that nobody has ever told her, and on some level, finding out what constitutes reasonable parenting is also part of the responsibility of a parent.

Nursery will give children experience of a structured, routine-led environment, exposure to other children and adults for social development and experiences, plenty of non-screen related stimulation and time to play and explore with different toys/environments/experiences. They will be read to and counted with and spoken with and listened to. They will be offered at least one solid meal. These things are all hugely important for children and most children DO get these things at home, thankfully. But for the children who don't get these things at home, the chance to experience them at nursery gives them a huge boost. The difference between getting some experience of these things vs a lot of experience of these things is much smaller than the difference between getting some experience vs no/very little experience. That difference is huge.

For some parents unfortunately you can counsel and advise them as much as you want but they won't change their behaviour. Most people, even if they have very little experience with children or experienced neglect in their own childhood etc know that there are parenting books, websites, support groups and will use these if they need to.

I do know what you mean about supporting the whole family. In an ideal world this would be better, and I think it is a great shame that it is not possible or practical to offer this support but realistically, I think you are naive about the sheer amount of support and time and input which would be necessary to make a real difference. A meeting and plan made with a social worker is unlikely to be anywhere near enough. It might help in some cases, but it probably needs much more intensive 1:1 daily support, for periods of weeks at a time, over years. And even then, it might not be enough.

I don't know if you ever saw the old Supernanny programmes. I realise they are programmes made for entertainment, and TBH I haven't ever been the biggest fan, but the reason I mention them is that she did often implement this kind of advice - looking at things like bedtimes and parents spending quality time with their kids. I watched an interview with her recently where she talked a bit about the behind the scenes on the show and two things I hadn't realised was that she actually spent 200 hours with each family, and that she had veto power over which families she worked with and she tried to select for people who actually wanted help (rather than wanting to be on TV). Obviously it's edited down to show the most dramatic angle and it's very heavy on the "Super Nanny cracks the naughtiest kids ever!!" but watching some of the older programmes through the lens of this you can see that what she is doing is really parent training, not child training. And yet in every programme, even when the parents genuinely want and invite the input, even though they have had someone follow them round 24/7 making observations and providing coaching of their parenting right there in the moment, they always fall out of the routine, they always get things wrong thinking they are getting it right, they always miss really crucial steps, it generally takes a lot more coaching and support to get things to a better place, probably realistically much more than the 200 hours or whatever it was.

It's really hard for people to change habits. It takes a lot more than some instructions and advice. The person has to really want to change and believe in the value of the change and understand why it will help, and possibly also understand why they were doing it differently before. For parenting they also have to be prepared to deal with pushback from children who tend to like the idea of getting unlimited screen time and junk food and no bedtimes, and will fight changes like this even if once they are used to the new rules they are ultimately happier. And all of this while the problems which were underlying their difficulties in managing basic parenting responsibilities in the first place probably haven't gone away or been addressed. And then remember this is someone coming in who has not been invited, but an authority, saying you must do this/that/the other. Not all parents are going to agree with the ideas that the social worker has about good parenting. Even amongst good, involved, educated parents there can be raging debates about topics like co-sleeping vs sleep training, for example.

OTOH you can fund childcare and give children a few hours' experience each day of the critical things that they need. It works, immediately, it provides measurable benefit to the children whether the parents get their shit together or not. Parents accept it because it is not seen as a direct criticism of them. It's absolutely a sticking plaster, but the metaphor for what is needed is complicated reconstructive surgery, and that isn't realistically possible, so a sticking plaster will have to do.

Children’s centres have been slashed. Before the coalition government there was at least 1 or 2 per secondary school catchment. Now my whole city has 3 and they are for extreme cases.

Nurseries often carry out home visits on vulnerable children who do not attend.

The threshold for SS is high everywhere. Getting a funded nursery place is the intervention. The nursery are now tasked with the mental/physical welfare of the child and reporting any concerns. There are so many children who should be removed from their parent for their welfare/safety, but the threshold for that is extremely high, and besides, SS do not have the time/money/foster carers to facilitate any of this.

The starting school bag is a nonsense though, the vast majority of children have what they need for starting school, better to focus on those that don’t. The Scottish government approach is to consistently slap a sticking plaster on things. They know the issues in social workers and pass the buck to local authorities, they over legislate and under resource, and they know that’s what they’re doing.

I’d love to see a return to social workers practice rooted in long term, quality relationships with families but it won’t happen under any iteration of the current government. But at least the wean has a school bag.