To think this mother needs to sort her issues out?

[FreckledLeopard]

There is a girl in DD's class (they're all in Year 8, so aged 12/13). The girl is in DD's group of friends. She is a sweet girl.

This girl (I will call her Sophie for sake of anonymity) recently turned 13. Aside from taking some cakes into school, she had no party or any kind of celebration as the mother said she couldn't afford to. I should probably add here that the school they all attend is private, so the mother must pay some school fees (though could, of course, have a substantial bursary. I don't know).

The girl lives with her mother and brother. The father (parents are divorced) lives abroad and doesn't seem to see much of his children at all. The brother is 21 and lives at home.

I've met the mother on a couple of occasions and she is odd. Very odd. Very fussy, very nervy, can't make normal chit chat. She is also seemingly obsessively grateful if her daughter is invited to anything (and given the amount that 13 year old girls socialise, it's a bit odd that she's so gushing and grateful anytime her daughter is invited anywhere).

Anyway, DD and her friends thought that as Sophie hadn't had any kind of celebration, they'd arrange a sleepover this half-term, invite Sophie, and make it a little surprise party with cakes and gifts. DD checked that Sophie was free, all the friends have been planning the party (fancy dress, food, attendees, music, presents etc).

Then, DD hears from Sophie (who is very upset) - her mother has said Sophie can't come as Sophie's older brother is out that night and the mother won't stay at her house on her own. She is too scared. Let me point out that they live in suburbia of a normal town (not known for gangs, violence or anything to be scared of). I called the mother (at DD's request) to explain that the girls had organised this surprise party which is why they really wanted Sophie to come. The mother told me she was sorry but was too scared to be at home on her own, so her daughter couldn't come to the party.

Sophie is of course massively upset (she didn't know about the party, but obviously wanted to see her friends). DD is upset. The friends are upset. There are no other dates that can be organised for half term.

Now, I understand people might have anxiety of some kind. But this woman is basically turning her children into her carers. God knows what happens if either the older brother of Sophie want to go to university, or, God forbid, leave home.

I've just had a text from the mother confirming that Sophie can't come. I'm sitting on my hands to stop myself from typing back that she needs to sort out her issues and not make her children suffer as a result.

AIBU in thinking this is massively unfair on the kids and will royally fuck up their lives? I obviously can't do much about it other than fume. But honestly - surely the mother should seek some help rather than making her kids suffer?

Please I remember your story

The OP should have had the courtesy to speak to Sophie's mum about what was being planned. If something like this was being done for my DD, it might be welcome but I would expect to be given all the information going about the nature of the sleepover. Perhaps she could have arranged things differently if she'd had all the info at the outset.

And there's nothing wrong with being odd and nervy! If the OP is an example of 'normal', I know which I'd rather have! OP, did you even consider that the way you've handled this has made Sophie's life worse? I very much hope you haven't conveyed disapproval to your DD by so much as the raising of an eyebrow. If the poor woman really is 'odd', it would help Sophie for you to have a modicum of discretion and ignore it.

And why didn't you invite Sophie's mum to stay if you care about the situation so very much? Maybe we wouldn't need SS so much if people cared more about others in the community (v. much harder than a surprise party).

are you trying to insist that very many of the people on MN that imo/e perceive or feel that they have been abused have not simply because a statutory requirement has not been tripped?

Of course not. My response was to what you posted earlier:

Eventually we see that abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused.

Note your use of the word "only". That's why I was in

I haven't read the whole thread there are 16 pages! but I wonder whether the mother doesn't want to feel indebted for a party which she cannot repay by inviting the friends etc, and so she has come up with a rather silly excuse.

I feel sorry for the daughter, but it's not really your business. Just organize something during school time instead.

I am not diluting abuse. How would that be possible?

By stating things like “abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused”, and by refusing to admit that many people cry wolf and bandy the word abuse about totally unnecessarily and inaccurately.

Is that like saying that acknowledging the many rapes that go on without prosecution is diluting the real rapes..ie those that end in prosecution

Whether a rape case goes to court or not, no one is denying that someone who is raped is a victim of abuse, and a victim of crime and has every right to those valid feelings. Someone who feels abused by their parents because they didn’t get that new iphone they wanted is not a victim of abuse – no matter how much they may FEEL they are.

I'm trying to get you to understand but admittedly am failing as I feel you are miles away from reality and are quite entrenched within what you don't know

And you’re quite entrenched in refusing to admit that not everyone who cries abuse has actually been abused, that some of them are misusing the word.

If I said to all the women on MN that if their parents had not been convicted of abuse then they had no right to feel abused how would that sit with them?

How it would sit them doesn’t really interest me, I just think it’s wrong to validate wildly inaccurate feelings. Would I argue the point with a professional victim like my mother, and attempt to tell her she is not a victim, not abused by my no-contact (by rejection by her church, peers, friends, neighbours, other family members), is suffering the consequences of her own actions, no of course not, she is not right in the head and doesn’t see logic and reason like most people do. Do I think her feelings of being abused by all sundry should be validated, no, I absolutely don’t.

If I said that under whatever cut and paste definition that Princess has found on wikipedia was not met then it wasn't abuse then where would it leave them?

That there is a grey area is without doubt. That it’s hard to draw a line in the sand, I won’t dispute. That “abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused” is a total cop out and gives every person with delusional thinking more reason to be delusional.

By the way, what a nice and not-at-all-patronizing “Princessbabycat must have found her abuse definition on Wikipedia” comment too, lol. Have a quick google of sequence and you will see it appears on many “real” websites, like the Centre for Child Abuse, and other child advocacy websites and even local social services websites.

If I told you melted that I thought you have nothing to whine on about unless your parents were prosecuted then where would it leave you?

Exactly where I am right now. I don’t need the validation of strangers. I’m a balanced adult secure in myself, and don’t need anyone to tell me how I feel or what parts of my childhood were abusive, and what parts were just shitty, inconvenient or merely just “not as good as I would have wanted”. Anyway, no offence intended, but the very last type of person I would want validation from is someone like you who just validates everybody.

Abuse is difficult to assess and sometimes is assessed as not meeting criteria when it does. We take seriously and treat self reported abuse and feelings of abuse as actually who are we to say....er well under this assessment what you feel is bollocks

Telling somebody that something is bollocks is miles away from just not validating them. I know someone with paranoid personality disorder, I don’t tell her she is talking bollocks when she goes off on one of her many paranoid “rants”, I also don’t validate her and say “well if you feel abused, you are”.

Luckily Melted you aren't professionally dealing with or minimising the experiences of others

Also actually people who claim to have been abused, in the vast majority, have been - with the caveat of those who are suffering from another illness or disorder that prevents them from accurately assessing or reporting what is actually happening.

What harm comes from believing someone who feels they have experienced abuse to the extent that it is seriously impacting their life currently?
If, over time, it starts to become clear that they may be suffering from a personality or other disorder then work can begin to help them deal with that. Even for people who might externally be judged as hypersensitive, delusional or paranoid the feelings for them, at that time, are very real.
We work with them.

This work and extension of empathy doesn't diminish the word abuse.

You continually minimise emotional abuse as not getting an iphone etc. This example would never, on the face of it, be considered to be abuse as it would not significantly impact upon someone's life and because it is clear that there is a difference between what someone wants and someone needs. However, if in the unlikely event that someone was referred with this as their presenting issue we still wouldn't rubbish them as perhaps there is much more there to assess.
We'd listen, explore, assess.

If your mother sought help for a relationship with her daughter that was so toxic that it was impacting upon the way that she was leading her life then of course we would listen to her, believe her and of course assess her. We wouldn't minimise her experience in the same way that we wouldn't minimise yours.

We need to extend empathy and understanding to others. Judgement against a very narrow set of personal rules are rarely helpful especially to someone who might be struggling.
The OP offering help to 'Sophie's' mum or asking if she is okay would be appropriate. Asking 'Sophie' if she needed anything and gently and kindly being there for her and her family would be useful. Keeping an eye on the situation would be helpful.
Speaking to SS because a child doesn't attend one sleepover feels like a complete over reaction and a waste of their very precious time.

Luckily Melted you aren't professionally dealing with or minimising the experiences of others

And luckily for abused children you aren't answering the phone at s.s!

And how do you know who I am, or what I do for a living? And do you expect me to believe every self-proclaimed “well I know about this because I do it for a living” person on the internet? Seriously? I guess in your world internet chatrooms and social networking sites aren’t places where 45 yr old pose as 17 yr old boys, and catfishing is just a rumour, and Ronald McDonald is your real name too I guess, as you have some kind of issue with my anonymity? I wish I could find that grip right now and pass it to you. Doh! This is the internet, a bit of healthy skepticism is positively advised!

You continually minimise emotional abuse as not getting an iphone etc

And you continuously minimise the possibility that Sophie could be being abused by minimizing it to “oh get over it, she only has to stay home to babysit her mum once that we know of” and continuously criticize, as scaremongering, over-reaction and a waste of resources, the suggestion to alert authorities to the possibility that something untoward could be happening.

We wouldn't minimise her experience in the same way that we wouldn't minimise yours

The problem I see with the --professional validators—therapists like the one one of my sibs and my mother goes to, they never actually tell their patient that the vast majority of the issues they are suffering are direct consequences of their own actions.

My niece and her husband don’t let my sister have unsupervised contact with their children (my sister’s grandchildren). My sister’s professional validators therapists, continually agree with my sister (for about 2 years now) that my niece is unreasonable, or tells her that my niece “has her own issues” or is “over protective” instead of gently pointing my sister to the reality of the situation that she (my sister) is just a bit too flakey (because of her irresponsible actions in the past with her own children and her continued “unconventional” lifestyle choices) to be left unsupervised with children.

How does this level of false validation actually help any one? Telling someone like my sister, who 99% of responsible parents wouldn’t leave leave their child with, that the fault lies with “the over protective parents” helps nothing and no one, least of all my sister. I have some sympathy for my sister, but she would be better served by learning that she is suffering justified consequences of her actions, than just being validated willy-nilly.

Keeping an eye on the situation would be helpful. Speaking to SS because a child doesn't attend one sleepover feels like a complete over reaction and a waste of their very precious time

Well thank god I didn’t take your what you claim is professional advice when I had my gut feeling and called s.s, with suspicions that weren’t that much different/any more obvious than the OP in this thread had. By following my gut feeling, asking s.s. if I was even right to call them or was this too trivial to report, taking my lead from them (the PROPER professionals whose job it is to judge which reports are valid and aren't) having them listen and make notes and act where they saw fit, helped a young child (and his mother) get help and continued monitoring.

Now Z, if you offer me a with that my weekend can begin

Can I just ask, genuinely, hand on heart, how many of you would actually ring SS about this?

How would that conversation go?

Me: I think this girl is being abused.

Them: What makes you think that?

Me: The mother doesn't want to be alone in the house, so says the girl can't come to a sleepover.

Them: Has she been allowed to socialise before?

Me: Yes, this is the first time it's happened, but I think she's being made to be a carer.

Them: Does the mother have a disability?

Me: I don't know - but she doesn't like to be alone at night. One of her children has to be there.

Them: So the girl can never go out?

Me: No, she's been out a number of times. But only when her brother is home.

Them: So what are you basing this carer/abuse situation on?

Me: I didn't like the reason which she gave for not allowing her daughter to go on a sleepover one time.

I'm all for halting abuse. I'm all for listening to children when they want to talk, but there really doesn't seem to be anything here, and the child is 13! She's not silent. She has teachers, friends, possibly other relatives.

At 14 my friend was sexually abused. She told me. I told other people. People got involved fast. If she'd have said 'I'm not allowed to come to you house this time...' I probably would have been pissed off, but would not think she was in real and immediate danger.

Also, just to add, people who are concerned that the mother isn't treating her possible, rumoured mental health situation seriously - who says she's not? It's not a case of 'I feel a bit dodgy, but the doctor will fix me with one pill...' Recovery from mental health problems take time and energy. Yes I altered the way I lived when I needed to concentrate on mine. Yes that had a knock on effect to the children, who couldn't go out to noisy places as often as they might think they wanted. Yes they couldn't have playdates home because there was a danger of me sobbing at all of them randomly. I didn't instantly put my children into care because I'm not completely stupid. I worked with the children to help them understand what was going on, and what I was doing to resolve it. It wasn't ideal, but there was sweet FA that I could do that I wasn't already doing. During that time, I was being seen by two doctors, several nurses, and was on a cocktail of drugs. I had to alter my lifestyle anyway, because that's how life is sometimes.

I do put them first, as it happens. My life is still unrecognisable given the many restrictions that I have to live with. Their lives are now pretty much back to normal. I will make sure I'm well enough for playdates by not staying up past 9, not drinking, not going out in the evenings for myself, taking the cocktail of pills, all of which I do so that I can cope during the time that the children are awake.

perfectly put looking could not be better put

I'm not a therapist melted

LookingThroughTheFog, I don’t think anyone thinks that based on not being able to attend one sleepover that s.s are going to rush in and set a million investigation wheels in motion, far from it. Maybe nothing will ever come of it, ever. Maybe a 3 line note gets written on a post-it-note, and then filed away never to see the light of day again unless another report comes in. Then say, like happened when I reported “I just think something’s not right” to s.s, that there already had been issues (which I only learned much later) raised by the child’s school. So now you have two separate areas in a child’s life stating similar concerns. Say a year later a third area of the child’s life also called s.s. with another different but similar report, a pattern is starting to emerge. Three areas of a child’s life (say: school, a friend’s mum, and a neighbour) all have some kind of hunch that things may not be right, maybe then they look a little bit closer.

I am not about to sit here and make out like what I reported to s.s. was in any way some big deal, much more than the OP of this thread had, it wasn’t AT ALL. I could kick myself (with hindsight) that I sat on it way too long, but that was really because I genuinely thought I was half-imaging things. It was just a lot of little silly things that felt off, and a silly gut feeling that the child was just too scared, too often, and a mother that was a bit “different”, possibly too overbearing, a tad enmeshed with the child, and I thought a bit unstable.

If a report is of a minor issue, and remains one individual report I honestly think zero will come of it. But another 1 or 2 or 3 reports of minor issues come in, then cumulatively I think that in most cases some steps will be taken. That is not to say that steps will be taken and a parent will be judged to be acting wrongly. Maybe if someone like Sophie’s mum was looked at, in all probability she may very well be found to have some sort of anxiety issue and deemed perfectly within her rights and perfectly within child welfare norms for her to refuse her child a sleepover in favour of being there as support to her mum.

As removed as we on MN are from this situation, it’s impossible to say if Sophie is in the world’s best home with a fantastic mother, or has been on the at-risk register since she was a toddler. We simply don’t know. All we can do is look critically at ourselves, our motivations, the situation as we know it, and if we still feel something’s off, we make a phone call and take guidance from social services, as they are the one’s best placed to judge what needs looking closer at and what doesn’t. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with speaking to a child’s school as has been suggested on this post by others. That option wasn’t open to me as I had no way in (no point of contact) at the school of the child I made the report of. I dare say schools would usually, if not help directly, then at least steer concerned people in the right direction.

I'm not a therapist melted

I didn’t think for a moment you were, not after that armchair diagnosis/attack you did on the OP a few pages back, no true professional in the MH I know would ever make a post remotely like that. Though I did think you were possibly trying to pass yourself off as a therapist, so thanks for the clarification.

I'm unsure that they would agree with your assessment of them being professional validators

I wouldn’t expect them to!

For the record, I actually think some therapists are excellent, the majority are good, but some are downright awful and yes I do think professional validators who take an easy way out with difficult cases. No profession is free from idiots and bad apples.

SS, GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, prisons, schools and prisons very often work with them very closely and rely on their opinions, plans and suggestions.....I guess they are all also sorely misguided and their trust is misplaced.

I mentioned 2 therapists in that earlier post who I felt were professional validators, where do you get the idea I think all of them are shit? I don’t, at all. Like any profession, there are good and bad. And to be fair to the two psychs/professional validators I slagged off in that post, I also know that the main condition my sister is diagnosed with is …shall we say…. one of the most challenging MH disorders, and many psychs simply won’t take on clients with my sister’s dx. I think I am right in saying that that particular diagnosis is the one most shied away from by the profession. So maybe in light of that I should not criticize at all.

sorry, I don't mean they shy away from making that particular diagnosis, I mean it's their least favourite patient type to treat.

I got to page 3 and almost blew up, so had to reply. It seems 'mental health issues' can be used to excuse anything these days - even emotional abuse - which is what this is. The mother is 'altercasting', she is casting her 13 year old daughter into a parenting role so she herself can take the child role. And some of you guys are like, oh poor mother. Fuck that.

I got to page 3 and almost blew up, so had to reply.

lol, lightweight!

I got 6 pages before the apologists had that effect on me.

Not sure why so many people would prioritise a grown adult woman above a child.

Not sure why so many people would leap to a series of dramatic conclusions based on hearsay from an OP who's obviously taken a dislike to the mother in question.

Bollocks - who said she expected her child to 'protect her'? Stop making this shit up.

Quote:

her mother has said Sophie can't come as Sophie's older brother is out that night and the mother won't stay at her house on her own. She is too scared.... The mother told me she was sorry but was too scared to be at home on her own, so her daughter couldn't come to the party.

Clearly she does expect her child to protect her, if only from being scared.

Rubbish - for all you know, she was making up an excuse as many others have said, or maybe she needs help with family pets, or maybe....

I could come up with all kinds or 'maybe' events but they would be just as much fabrication as the rather daft 'protect' story.

This thread is a disgrace.

It maybe as simple as the mother doesn't want Sophie with the op's child.

Disgusted at attitudes towards mental health. Most will experience it themselves or someone in their family at some point in their lives

Clearly she does expect her child to protect her, if only from being scared

Precisely. Who is the child and who is the adult in this relationship?

Rubbish - for all you know, she was making up an excuse as many others have said, or maybe she needs help with family pets, or maybe..

The question you asked was "Who said she expected her child to 'protect her'?" I told you who said so. You may not believe that person, but it doesn't make my answer rubbish.

I do like the fact that after saying "stop making this shit up" you come back with a reference to what is at best a load of total speculation. Apparently there are some classes of made up shit which are completely acceptable.

Rubbish - for all you know, she was making up an excuse as many others have said, or maybe she needs help with family pets, or maybe....

mme if we're going to go down the "for all you know" route, and then go on to make up any old rubbish to support our argument, then two sides can play at that game, right? So for all the apologists who think it's ok for adults to deprive their child of a pretty much once in a life time surprise birthday party because her mum is scared of the dark.... for all you know Sophie babysits her mum regularly, is dperived of social outings regularly, and it just so happens it's only being noticed this time because something was arranged on her behalf.

This thread is a disgrace.

and smile I know, isn't it. Can you credit that so many grown women would put the needs of an adult before a child?

It maybe as simple as the mother doesn't want Sophie with the op's child.

and smile oh here we go again, yet another one grasping at any old straw they can find to think of any possible "maybe" reason that will put Sophie's mother in a better light. But like I say, two can play at that game, right? So, in that vein.... Maybe the mother is so scared of the dark she wakes Sophie up in the middle of the night to accompany her to the toilet. See, easy, isn't it? Sticking any old thing on the end of the word maybe!

Precisely. Who is the child and who is the adult in this relationship?

Womble lol, you'd better not go there, you'll get the apologists coming back telling you (for 3 pages long), that anxiety related issues are valid reasons for mothers to expect their children to do the parenting. Oh and you'll get told things like "have some compassion too". I wish that lot had half as much compassion for children as they do for flakey parents!

Clearly she does expect her child to protect her, if only from being scared

icimoi It seems like the apologists don't want the to use the facts as they were given by the op, because "maybe bla bla bla" is far easier for them to make things up in defence of the mother, at the expense of the child. Besides, the facts as they were are kind of inconvenient for them, as they do put the mother in a poor light. So better if they just ignore them and make something up.