AIBU Or will this penalise mothers more than fathers

I think the numbers of misbehaving youths that have their mums financial situation in mind when they are out terrorising communities is vanishingly small. And the idea that parents have any real control over children who have this mindset once they are 13+ is laughable. Families need stronger interventions at much younger ages to prevent the issues occurring.

What do you do if the Dad has pissed off back to Jamaica?

The Southport attacks were committed by a teen whose parents:

knew that he had a bow and arrow, a sledgehammer and signed for the delivery of a machete he ordered

stopped him getting a taxi to his former school with a can of petrol when he said he was going to burn it down

The Southport inquiry reported that there were no ways that state organisations notably social care could have prevented the attacks and noted that Axel’s autism was used as an excuse for violent behaviour that was not referred to the police.

however the inquiry also said that the parents knew Axel was dangerous and violent and was planning an attack and if they had informed the police or any other state agency then the attack would have been prevented.

a number of recommendations were made by the inquiry some involving social care (in particular there is a split between autism support services and services like prevent which aim to stop domestic terrorism and Axel should have been referred to prevent but was mostly referred to autism support services.

however his parents were clearly felt by the inquiry to be morally liable as they knew he was planning an attack and did not inform the police because they had various concerns about Axel being taken into residential care.

many autistic teens are taken into residential care due to the impact of their violence on their family but this is the first time an autistic teen known to suppprt services has deliberately planned a terrorist attack on non relatives - it’s normally family violence and the focus is on keeping the child with autism safe not protecting the victims of their violence.

Exactly, this is why I can’t see how it’s workable, if there is a punishment it should be both parents but i can’t see how it is fair to punish the parent who has brought up the child but the one who has pissed off gets off scot free.

I see the result of Dads doing this every day in my school.

I think there is a huge issue widespread currently of children being out of control, and certainly beyond the control of parents. Maybe it depends where you live and what it is like in your area but in particular where my sister lives currently is just awful for it and where we live is slightly better but even here in the last month alone there have been probably 10 posts on the local facebook page of kids setting fires destroying the park & bins (caught on cctv of a neighbouring house, faces out, parents tagged in the comments and just replying with “what he does outside of this house isn’t my business” style comments, kids riding around the streets on the illegal bikes going through red lights, over zebra crossings, 2 young lads have died on these bikes over the summer just in our village- most of these kids are 12-16, their parents are the ones who bought them the bloody bikes.

All that is to say, I get it. I get why people want this, I imagine in our village lots of people will be happy and excited to see this proposal and I understand why- we/people are seeing kids behave terribly here and parents either can’t be arsed or are facilitating it.

But, I’m not really sure how this will work. Actually jailing parents wouldn’t really help any children, cutting benefits doesn’t just impact the adult it also means less money for food/heating/clothes/rent for the whole family and I’m not sure “make your kids behave or you’ll starve” is the message to send either, in real terms this will just be a case of having to attend more parenting classes which don’t have a great success rate either.

I don’t know what the answer is, agree with others saying this is an area that needs a total reform from the ground up, with lots of funding, resources etc.

I do. I also understand vulnerability etc. Do you think just saying to women 'you crack on' makes life better for them or their children? That why early intervention works and also why we started to remove children, rather than let their Mothers keep them in abusive situations. So you don't want debate? Just that's there's one type of Mother, who is a victim?

I don't think i agree with this unless it's an extreme case like the Southport murders and even then I think the parents asked for help? And what age would be the cut-off?

But it's a really good point about single parents - why should a man bugger off and leave the woman to deal with the child(ren)? I always think this in neglect cases. Yes, a mother shouldn't leave her 3 year old child at home alone while she goes clubbing with friends but where's the father and why does he get away with it.

And tell (male) pharmacists to stop making moral judgments and give women contraception when they need it. They wouldn't refuse men condoms. If you don't like the idea, do something else as a career.

I think this is a great idea. Too many feckless parents and too many people making poor procreation choices that impact the rest of society.

You think poor procreation choices should be a crime?! How far does that go? Because it seems like the beginning of eugenics.

Aside from that- do you think that feckless parents will be deterred by jail time? What impact do you think a fine would have? Do you really think this policy would change behaviours, or would it drive people further into poverty? (Because as a feckless parent having a criminal record won’t help you become a better member of society, it’ll make it harder to get a job / keep your home/ get out of poverty.) The answer to this problem would surely be early intervention/ education/ support which would stop people BECOMING feckless or from making Poor choices?

Can you please cut and paste where I said “poor procreation choices should be a crime”?

Thanks.

Realistically we already have this. Parenting orders already exist meaning parents have to engage in work if felt necessary. Parents benefits also get docked somewhat as they have court costs to pay every time their child ends up in court if the child is under 18 or not earning.

Also a huge proportion of kids in youth justice are in care - who gets sent to prison or prosecuted then?

if parents go to prison where will their children go?

families are often already living in poverty and struggling. I fail to see how adding to that solves the issue.

unexpectedly there are the majority of parents who want support, want their children to change. Teenagers are influenced by way more than just at home at that age, school and peers play a huge part, exploitation, relationships etc.

this money would be better spent funding more interventions to tackle the actual issue.

Whilst you didn’t type that, the discussion and op asks the question whether the plans to cut the benefits of (ie fine) or take LEGAL ACTION (crime) against parents is a good plan, and whether it would discriminate against mother more. You responded to the OP and thus the question asked that “I think this is a great idea! (So you felt that the proposal is a good plan which would criminalise the parents) and then went on to give your reasons as to why you felt the plan was a great idea - because too many parents are “feckless” and make “poor procreation choices”. So there’s a natural extrapolation as per your statement “this is a good idea because x and y”. Of course, I don’t absolutely know your intention behind the words you typed, but I don’t think my point was wildly outlandish in relation to drawing attention to the next steps along that road. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. Thanks