Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is abuse?

83 replies

EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:35

I just need to know if it is reasonable to say this person was an abusive parent.

This was decades ago btw, the child is now an adult.

Failing to provide adequate clothing, particularly underwear. A typical incident was the child being in top juniors, having to do PE in her underwear and having such big, revealing, holes in her knickers she was too embarrassed to join in.

Not even having a tooth brush. At the age of 12 the child was smart enough to join a dentist herself. She got her first ever tooth brush. She needed 8 fillings.

Not providing a school uniform. At the age of 13 the child got a Saturday job and saved up for months to buy her own uniform.

The child never even had her own bed. She shared a single bed with her sister who was 14 months younger.

OP posts:
AnyFucker · 17/02/2012 18:37

This child was you ? Sad

Yes, what you describe is child abuse

MonsterBookOfTysons · 17/02/2012 18:37

Yes, I would say so :(

Ruthchan · 17/02/2012 18:38

It depends on the family circumstances.
Was the family so poor these things couldn't be afforded?
Did the parent have problems that made providing these things impossible in some way?
Was the parent deliberately denying the child things that were freely available to other members of the family?

MissSayuri · 17/02/2012 18:38

Er, who allowed the girl to do PE in holey underwear??! The school?

ALotToTakeIn · 17/02/2012 18:39

Yes abuse by neglect. I hope this child managed to find happiness as an adult.

JuliaScurr · 17/02/2012 18:39

Yes, it was abuse.
Hope she's OK now

asiatic · 17/02/2012 18:39

It entirly depends on the circumstances. A loving sharing parent might have done all those thigs, out of poverty, out of soem strange misguided philosophy on life, out of ignorance. This is not abuse.

Or the parent could have just been totally indifferent, in which case, mild neglect, I would say.

Or it could have been part of a pattern of control and manipulation

Original poster
EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:40

They certainly weren't wealthy but there was always money for cigarettes, the betting office and whisky. The eldest brother got into grammar school and never went short. Infact the three sons of the family always had everything they needed. It was the girls who went without.

OP posts:
Original poster
EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:42

In was quite normal at the time for the children to do PE in their underwear.

OP posts:
Original poster
EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:44

She did find happiness but is plagued by depression and anxiety. This is all just part of trying to unravel everything.

OP posts:
Marilyn1980 · 17/02/2012 18:44

what decade exactly was this?

I ask because I was brought up in the 80's, we had very very little but there were always funds for the essentials, if my Dad was out of work there were grants for school clothing. I always say that we were very poor at times but it's only now that I'm in my 30's that I realise these things. When we had money Mum used to bulk buy tins and we had a gas stove and candles in the cupboard. We thought this was in case of powercut, but it was actually in case the electric ran out. I'm sure my parents went without food sometimes so that we could eat, that's just what parents do.

In the 60's my gran could feed a family of 8 on bacon & cabbage or tatties & pint(milk)

I'd say that what's in the OP is at least neglect and at worst abuse.

AnyFucker · 17/02/2012 18:45

When I was growing up, if you didn't have PE kit, you did it in knickers and vest

that is how it was in the 60's/70's

DeWe · 17/02/2012 18:45

We used to have a slight family joke about my dsis underwear. She'd say "Dm I need some more pants, there's only three pairs left I can wear, one is only held together by the elastic at the side and the others have no gusset left..."

She'd insist on wearing it until they were in that state.

However the other things sound bad, although it could be thoughtlessness rather than deliberate neglect.

Marilyn1980 · 17/02/2012 18:45

If she and her sister went without whilst her brothers had what they needed then this is definite abuse.

troisgarcons · 17/02/2012 18:46

Depends on the family. "decades" ago grammar schools were fee paying and by scholarship. "decades"ago we didnt have the welfare state and the external support agencies school have now. ""Decades" ago people darned their clothes. "decades" ago the NHS didnt exist nor provide dental care. "decades"ago people had large families and slept top-to-tail. ad infinitum.

Was the child fed though? And how many "decades" are we talking?

Original poster
EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:48

This was in the 70's.

OP posts:
BettySuarez · 17/02/2012 18:48

If the girls were treated less favourably then the boys then definatley neglect Sad

I hope that this girl is now ok Smile

LineRunner · 17/02/2012 18:49

When I was a kid we were all required to do PE in our underwear at infant school. Pants and vest.

scurryfunge · 17/02/2012 18:49

I would see it as neglectful purely from the point of view of not taking a young child to the dentist knowing they had tooth decay (unless you are talking pre NHS when poverty may have prevented this).

OriginalJamie · 17/02/2012 18:50

This was neglect. Not mild neglect, either. The lack of dental hygiene alone is evidence for that

I was brought up in the 70s and 8os. Yes we wore vest and knickers for PE, but by top juniors it was T shirt and (as I recall) satin shorts

Original poster
EdnaClouds · 17/02/2012 18:50

I should had said, sorry to drip feed, the pair of knickers were the only ones she owned. She had to wash them out every night.

OP posts:
DurhamDurham · 17/02/2012 18:50

Sounds like neglect. As part of my job visitng people at home we have to decide whether it is abuse or just 'circumstances' and 'lifestyle'. As a marker if the whole family are 'scruffy' then it's the latter but if the parents are well dressed and the child isn't then it is abuse by neglect ( I know this is simplistic, it's just one of many markers). As the males of the family seemed to be well provided for then I think the op is correct in thinking it was abuse.

Lueji · 17/02/2012 18:50

Is she blaming the depression and anxiety on this?

Maybe she needs to look forward rather than look back?

OriginalJamie · 17/02/2012 18:51

And to be clear, neglect is a type of abuse.

AnyFucker · 17/02/2012 18:51

I remember one or two children who were at school with me in the 70's who had these problems

These days, things would be quite different Sad