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?

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.

lol, I know, the irony is hilarious. The "mother supporters" can project their issues on to this thread, but god forbid the "child supporters" do. They can speculate and make up till the cows come home, but ye gods, don't you dare do it, they'll have a hissy fit. They can slag the OP off, one went as far as to say "if she [the op] reports this to ss or the school she deserves a pasting", but I give a very gentle dig back and they report the post for deletion. It's quite pathetic really the depths the "mother supporters" will go to/have went to.

Mental health problems affect one in four people. You just can't generalise to say that mental health therefore equals bad parenting, it's like saying all black people are thieves. It might be true in some cases, but correlation does not equal causation. Some people who are black may steal, some people with red hair might lie about their age, some people with a slightly crooked nose might be bad dancers.

It's not a mother supporter, or a Sophie supporter, just a common sense supporter. NPD is very different to depression, anxiety and bipolar disorders. My father has NPD (diagnosed) and my mother has depression and was very abusive to me growing up. It wasn't their mental health that made them like that, it was them. I know loads of people who have MH conditions and are great parents, myself included. My DS wants for nothing.

But yes, saying mental health problems equals bad parenting is the same as saying black people are thieves. Correlation does not prove causation.

Practically speaking, no SS would likely not do anything at all. This wouldn't even get them to open an investigation. Even more realistically speaking, unless the child was in immediate danger (physical harm), the report would be thrown at the bottom of a huge stack and left to collect dust with no investigation due to lack of resources.

But I'm uncomfortable with the attitude of "Don't ever call SS because the poor mother might have MH issues!" People should not be hesitant or afraid to contact someone if they feel something isn't right.

You shouldn't be afraid to call someone because you think that someone might have MH issues. To TwosaCrowd's point, if you call the police about a black man stealing something it won't make you racist anymore than it would if you called the police over a white man stealing something.

But more to the point, just because someone has MH problems doesn't mean they deserve a get out of jail free card. Someone with ADHD might impulsively steal something, their brain is just wired to be impulsive no fault of their own. They still need to accept the consequences of stealing and not managing their disorder properly. ADHD won't cause someone to engage in criminal behavior, but it certainly does contribute to it.

Just like MH won't cause bad parenting, but it certainly contributes to it.

Also, let's be honest. There is not one person here who can say that they were a better parent with untreated depression than they were on ADs and getting treatment. Happy parents have happy children. Stressed parents have stressed children. It's not really rocket science.

You missed my point, a black person might steal something, but it's not because they are black. Saying all black people are thieves is racist, same as saying all people with MH problems make bad parents is ignorant and discriminatory.

TwosACrowd, your father was diagnosed with NPD. He was a bad father. Yet you say the fact he was bad father had nothing to do with his disorder. How can you say that? It goes against everything I have read on NPD (and witnessed first hand). By the very nature of their disorder, the symptoms of the disorder, and the coping mechanisms commonly used by NPD sufferers, well they are not traits that go hand in hand with good parenting.

Who said all MH patients are bad parents? I certainly didn’t, and I don’t recall anyone else who did. Yes I said a lot of MH patients make bad parents, especially those undiagnosed or not treating their illnesses. But I guess unlike you, I would say NPD parents, borderline pd parents, (other pd’s) parents, their disorder is (part of?) the reason why they are bad parents.

Incidentally, did your father receive (ongoing) treatment for his pd? If so did you see an improvement in his parenting during treatment? We all did with our close family member who has npd, pity though that she stopped treatment and went back to hideous narc mum in no time. But when she really got good help, and stuck at it, and put the work in, she wasn’t mum-of-the-year material, but she also wasn’t the total self-centered bitch she usually is,and her children definitely benefited as long as the treatment lasted.

Mental health problems affect one in four people.

Twosacrowd I don’t want to nitpick, and I am genuinely interested, but how accurate are those figures?

Do they apply to all people affected by any mental issue at any point in their lives?

Do they include minor/acute/short lived mh issues like a short period of depression after the loss of a loved one, short lived anxiety after a burglary, short period of stress after a redundancy etc.

Or does it mean that 1 in 4 people at any given time are walking around with chronic mental health issues?

So I guess I am asking: which is more accurate

a) mental health problems will affect 1 in 4 people at some point in their lives,

or

b) 1 in 4 people have chronic mental health problems

According to Mind it's 1 in 4 each year.

Thanks ShootMe,

It does include the one-off short lived things too. So it's not like 1 in 4 people are living with ongoing mental health issues. Thanks again. I'm off to read the rest of that link. Some of the stats were quite interesting.

You missed my point, a black person might steal something, but it's not because they are black. Saying all black people are thieves is racist, same as saying all people with MH problems make bad parents is ignorant and discriminatory.

But you can't really compare the two. Melanin does not affect the brain and how it works. It affects nothing but your epidermis.

MH affects your brain. Your brain affects all your actions and inaction. You can't really separate MH from what you do. Saying all people with ADHD is wrong, but an ADHD person might do something stupid and impulsive because they are ADHD and that's the difference.

*Saying all people with ADHD are criminals is wrong

I guess that's kind of a weird example.

It's like someone that's depressed committing suicide. You can't say that the depression didn't cause the suicide, them putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger did. Because if they weren't depressed they wouldn't have done that in the first place. Unfortunately you can't separate MH and how you act.

If the mother does have MH issue which is based on tenuous assumptions from OP and that this is what the OP thinks then I resent the assumption that she the mother 'needs to sort her issues out' like its a simple as poopin gout for pint of milk. She does indeed need to address her MH needs to possibly (again based on assumptions) to enable her to be reliant on her DD for anything.

I think the thread got a few backs up because there seemed little empathy for Sophies AND her mother. You cant side with a child or mother -w eshould be advocates for the parent and child relationship not either/or.

I think the thread got a few backs up because there seemed little empathy for Sophies AND her mother.

AndSmile I disagree about their being little empathy for Sophie’s mother. I cannot believe what lengths so many people have gone to to ????? it goes beyond just mere support for Sophie’s mother that so many toned. It was as someone stated up thread, like so many posters were going out of their way handing the mother a “get out of jail free” card on her parental responsibilities, while at the same time stating categorically that Sophie was just dandy and missing a pretty much once-in-a-lifetime birthday party was no big deal whatsoever.

You cant side with a child or mother –we should be advocates for the parent and child relationship not either/or.

I’m sorry, I will always put children’s needs first. If I can help both, great. If I can’t (which is the case most of the time), then the child wins hands down every single time. I don’t see helping to foster good parent/child relationship with every Tom, Dick and Harry and their children as part of my civic duty. I do see being alert to possible child abuse and neglect as part of my civic duty.

And to be fair, how was the OP in this thread in a position to further the parent/child relationship? She is not a health visitor or a social worker or a GP or a teacher. She is a school friend’s mum with a quite superficial relationship with Sophie’s mother. When I called s.s. when I felt things were off with someone I know, the last thing I was interested in was befriending (more than I had to out of necessity) an unstable and quite flakey woman. But I was very interested in her child’s welfare.

Maybe..re empathy

I never said it was the OP's or anyones 'civic' duty to foster good relationships. So are you saying rather than support and repair a child/parent relationship you would what intervene by removing them - say Sophie to live with a foster famly who would let her go to the party?

removing her from the home...putting her in a foster family.... ???

where are you getting all this far fetched stuff from?

Not from any thing on this thread that I have read.

removing a child from a family is, as it should be, reserved for the worst cases of abuse. In an ideal world what I would like to see happen, assuming it's not happening already, is a for a mother like Sophie's to get help to enable her to stay alone at night, so she wouldn't need to burden her daughter with babysitting her (the mother).

I resent the assumption that she the mother 'needs to sort her issues out' like its a simple as popping out for pint of milk

And I resent the assumption that it's some unattainable "reach for the stars" kind of goal to state that a mother should be able to stay home alone at night. OK, it might not be as easy for her as popping out for a pint of milk, but it doesn't have to be as difficult as is being made out.

And you maybe never said, in as many words, it was anybody's civil duty to foster good parent/child relationships, what you did say was:

"we should be advocates for the parent and child relationship not either/or"

which I pointed out sounds all nice-and-pink fluffy-ideal-world kind of stuff, but is quite unworkable in many situations where an either or choice has to be made for practical reasons. When we can't help both parent and child, for whatever reason, we help the child where we can because they don't have the options open to them that the parent has.

'it doesn't have to be as difficult as being made out' - THAT right there just shows the extent of you ignorance wen it comes to MH issues. For some people with MH condition whether long term or temporary it is.

far fetched stuff no I never accused anyone of saying this i used to highlight the alternative to suporting a family through helping them develop more functional relationships.

No andsmile that's not how I read Melted's post. I thought she meant she would rather get a professional to 'help' because they are trained to do so. This probably wouldn't involve taking the kid away at this stage.

'it doesn't have to be as difficult as being made out'

THAT right there just shows the extent of you ignorance wen it comes to MH issues. For some people with MH condition whether long term or temporary it is.

I am not being ignorant at all, you are just assuming a worst case scenario that it’s some major thing that will take a lot of time & effort sorting out, and disregarding the fact that it could be quite minor. It needn’t be major and shouldn’t be assumed on the basis of the scant information that we have here that 6 sessions of CBT wouldn’t sort it out. We don’t even know the mother has MH issues, all we know is she can’t be home alone at night and her children have to babysit her.

What gives you the right, and the knowledge to know this is a major mental health issue?

No professional viewing this thread would automatically assume that Sophie's mother needed MAJOR, time consuming help to enable her to stay alone at night.

I have a friend whose life was severely impacted by claustrophobia & fear of lifts, she couldn’t live in an apartment building or work in an office building with a lift, because of the lift phobia, she couldn’t pee in a public place without taking someone with her to guard the toilet door because she couldn’t lock it, her life was terribly affected in many ways and it was pulling her way way down. 6 CBT sessions with an element of exposure therapy incorporated into the sessions is all it took to “cure” her. Maybe not cure her in the complete sense of the word that she now loves lifts and enclosed windowless spaces, but enable her to use lifts and lock toilets doors, hence reducing the impact on her life dramatically. She is so much happier and better functioning than she was.

far fetched stuff no I never accused anyone of saying this i used to highlight the alternative to suporting a family through helping them develop more functional relationships.

You used a silly far-fetched alternative, a worst case scenario alternative, no kid is going to be hauled out of their home and put in a foster family just because mum is afraid of being alone at night. Parenting classes, therapy for the mum, a phone helpline for mum, etc are FAR more likely to be the upshot than removal from the home to a foster family. Keep it real please!

I thought she meant she would rather get a professional to 'help' because they are trained to do so. This probably wouldn't involve taking the kid away at this stage.

That’s exactly what I meant Womble, and… in the case I reported to s.s. that they did act on, I had neither the time or the inclination (let alone the expertise) to help the mother of the child. I did have enough time and inclination to help the child. A phone call doesn’t take long and doesn’t require much in the way of expertise. Unlike his mum, she did need, and got, professional help, and is still getting it.

I dont think the child should be removed in the sceario from OP.

I said that as melted said she would always put the needs of the child first rather than work at the relationship. Sorry for not spelling it out that I would exepect any old body to go in and do this including the OP and melted's civic duty - as she mentioned Of couse it would be through a professional.

In the case if OP IF there MH with the mum it is better to address the needs of the mother in this case as that in turn will address the needs of the child as it will enable her to have a normal social life and not be her mothers carer IF this is indeed the case. It would be silly to put the child first in this scenario which in the context of OP is enabling Sophie to attend to party.

melted you seemed to have assumed plenty of 'rights' on this thread...Ive gave my opinion as I am entitled to do as a user of this forum. I never said I knew she had a major MN issue. I have in my posts used word like assumption and possible I never said i knew. You seem to be uite happy sitting making up things to argue against

I think your last post has minimised MH conditions, there is a spectrum of conditions that are transient, intermittment and ongoing. Your example of your one friend with her specific problem that was made better after 6 sessions is not repsentative at all. I neveer mentioned CBT, I never suggested the nature of the OP's possible MH condition.

But argue away with your reconstructions of other peoples posts.

In the case if OP IF there MH with the mum it is better to address the needs of the mother in this case as that in turn will address the needs of the child as it will enable her to have a normal social life and not be her mothers carer IF this is indeed the case.

do you understand that by involving s.s, if they intervene, both the needs of the mother and the child are addressed?

It would be silly to put the child first in this scenario which in the context of OP is enabling Sophie to attend to party.

you need this spelling out to you.

I said putting the child's need first because you were advocating we all have to try to foster better parent/child relationships. I said "fine" to that, if you have the time, inclination and expertise to do that. If you don't then the child's needs come first in as far as... I attempt to help the child by calling s.s., while I do nothing directly to help the mother. Do you get that?

It would be silly to put the child first in this scenario which in the context of OP is enabling Sophie to attend to party.

Really, are you seriously not getting this or just pretending? You think that's all that us in support of Sophie's position is just all to get her to a birthday party (that is probably a moot point now as the window of opportunity has passed)? It's to evaluate if this is a one off thing, or if Sophie is suffering emotionally and developmentally on a regular basis from a mother who can't be left alone at night. Did you really need telling that?

melted you seemed to have assumed plenty of 'rights' on this thread...Ive gave my opinion as I am entitled to do as a user of this forum. I never said I knew she had a major MN issue.

And your opinion was that I was ignorant when in fact my view is more in line with reality than yours. Any mental health worker reading this thread would never assume on the scant information posted that this was some kind of major issue with Sophie's mum. It's like going to a the doctor with a lump in your breast, the doctor might tell you it could be cancer, but will directly tell you that it is far more likely to be something benign like a cyst. Professionals NEVER go for the worst case scenario when they don't have the evidence. That does not make them ignorant, it makes them realistic.

And of course it is your right to voice your opinion, as it my right to say "what a load of bollocks you're talking" when you do so. Rights work both ways, remember.

I think your last post has minimised MH conditions, there is a spectrum of conditions that are transient, intermittment and ongoing. Your example of your one friend with her specific problem that was made better after 6 sessions is not repsentative at all. I neveer mentioned CBT, I never suggested the nature of the OP's possible MH condition.

and what evidence do you have that Sophie's mother has a condition that can't be cured quiet easily? After all, I am ignorant to mention it could be a simple thing to cure, well show me some evidence to the contrary.

And of all the people who get successful help for mental health issues every year, just what is the percentage of them that only need short term treatment like 6 to 10 sessions? I was under the impression that was a LARGE percentage of people. How exactly do you know that Sophie's mum doesn't fall into that category.

You think I am being unreasonable and ignorant and minimising and god knows what all, well point out to me how exactly you know so much about Sophie's mum's condition. I am not being unreasonable or ignorant for saying the first assumption should not be to catastrophise and assume the worst, or assume it's going to take major work to cure.

I refer to the last sentence of my last post.

Typical internet forum behaviour. Come in and criticise and complain and act like you know everything better, then cop out completely the first time you're confronted on your own ill informed words.

Mind you, I don't blame for not what to attempt to defend even the half of what you said, it is simply too out there to stand up to any scrutiny.