To not want DD to have play-dates or attend parties in certain areas due to safety concerns?

[HourOrTwo]

She is 7. Until now she only has playdates with friends whose parents we know well, but now she has a bigger group of friends. Some of these friends live on local council estates. One of these estates has a particularly bad reputation (drug problems, unemployment, high crime rate). When I drove through it recently I noticed kids playing out in street, groups of youths standing around smoking and drinking, big dogs in studded collars roaming around (no muzzles), rubbish everywhere etc. I don't mean to sound judgemental but it's not the sort of place we want DD playing or walking around.

We're happy for DD's friends to come play at ours, and we want her to socialise with children from social different backgrounds... but recently she's been invited on several play-dates on these estates plus a party. So far I've made excuses, as I don't want her playing out unsupervised and TBH don't like her going to houses unless I know the parents and trust them to keep a close eye on her. Even if I chatted to these mums at school gates and they promise to supervise, I don't want her going to houses where anyone is smoking, drinking or teenage siblings are coming in and out with their mates, or any household with a dangerous dog (there are a lot of pitbulls and rottweilers on the estate), but I can't really ask this.

How do we politely decline these play-dates without offending anyone? Is there a way we can have DD's friends at our house without her going to their houses? And what do I tell DD, without mentioning it's because of the area her friends live?

OP probably assumed that people who live on Council Estates don't post on MN.

Because we are to busy getting pissed,jacking up and walking our big scary dogs.

Jaysus people are being ridiculous in here.

If you don't feel comfortable about your child going somewhere, then you don't let them go. It really is that simple. Your child, your rules. Sod everyone else's neuroses.

And if they hate you for it, well leave them to it. Everyone judges, of course they do. 90 per cent of the posters in this thread have judged you very harshly indeed. Hypocritical much...

I'm picturing diamond studs... For the pooch who has everything.

Sugar I think all the neuroses here is coming directly from the OP, thanks.

Syringes can be found anywhere - I went on a walk round the local Priory & they were littered on part of the footpath!

Same with big dogs like bull terriers & rottweilers - they are around every time I go to the beach. Btw small dogs can be snappier with children.

Dope smoking & drinking among parents & teenage siblings can take place in ANY home - council estate, posh large houses, private estate, anywhere.

Playing outside happens on most estates, council or private or mixed, where there are lots of families & young children. And if they are not supervised then yes they can get up to mischief (I remember running across garage roofs, ringing doorbells & running away, playing in the local pub car park, making dens etc etc, going to other neighbour's houses that my mum didn't know when on playdates etc etc. Most of that on private estates.)

So basically you have to teach your child some common sense - what to do if she sees a syringe, how to behave around dogs, to say no to drugs & alcohol, how to say no when her friends get up to mischief, traffic sense & all the usual stuff.

Also if I was a parent I would be getting to know the other parents & explaining that at 7 I would really want my child supervised when outside; or playing outside but only within certain boundaries (eg. just on the street outside).

Out of curiosity OP, are you in Bucks? A lot of what you describe and the village/estate divide sounds very familiar.

sugarman

agree
some people have genuine case to take offence- fair play I say. I allow them their offended-ness.

but there are so many council estate dwelling estate MN on this thread that claim to drink, smoke, deal, own Rottweilers and hang out on their discarded sofas on da block- - like Shameless.

Something does not gel!!!

Any parent of a teenager, and/or anyone who knows any teenagers, has a case to get offended. I hate this idea they're all waiting to torment small children. The ones I know are all rather lovely, if rather too prone to pointless lurching around.

I don't need to live on a council estate and own Rottweilers to feel offended.

Only working class Rottweilers are dangerous Sewing

How lovely of you OP to want your child to mix with the lower classes...
Only if the play dates occur in a better area though where the 'statistics' are lower rather than their natural habitat.
Seriously what do you want people to say? How did you expect people to react?
Just don't let your dd go on the play dates if you're so uncomfortable and worried about it. I doubt anything said on MN will make you feel any more at ease if it's the drug addled, dog infested, drink and smoke dwellers hell hole that you make it out to be. Because you've driven through it once and saw someone smoking, someone drinking a tinnie and someone walking a big dog.

FWIW I think if you allowed her to go she would be absolutely fine and daresay she might have some fun, even if a teenage sibling and friends are present and might join in the games or even help out with the party

But if you can't bear the idea of what she may be exposed to then just don't let her go and stick to the nicer families who are kind enough to give you a long list of rules for the play date regarding what their little darlings can and can't do/eat. When the 'council estate mums' invite her just say no. Be prepared for your dd to feel left out and disappointed when she's the one who's not allowed to the party though.

Your friends and other parents at the school sound ridiculous and vile btw.

And sugarman, judging someone for their attitudes, prejudices and snobbery is slightly different to judging parents and families because of where they live.

OP, you do realise most teenagers fall into one of two categories?

1. Great with small kids, love being around them.

2. Think small kids are annoying as hell and therefore keep conpletely out of their way.

So either way your DD is golden, isn't she?

I would hasten to add that the vast majority of dogs also fall into one of those categories, regardless of (a) size and (b) whether they wear a studded collar or not.

Confused about why people think the weapon dog thing is an exaggeration. There were at least six, if not more, on the small estate I lived on last year - it is a bit of a known "thing" that some young men aspire to have dangerous dogs, and frankly I'm shit scared of these kind of dogs running wild around kids. Shoot me. I don't think that makes me a "snob"... I worked on the worst estates in Bradford and Birmingham and these dogs can be terrifying, not all of them are well treated and some of them are very badly treated indeed, and you'd be a total idiot not to fear them.

And Cook, I would say judging is judging. People's judgements arise naturally out of their learning histories. A lot of judgement is born of ignorance and fear. If you want to change someone's judgement of something, shaming them is just about the worst way possible of doing it and judging them critically really achieves nothing but a bit of a superiority complex on the part of the judger.

so if it's just teen boys I best keepmy brother away from my 6 yo DS and when DS is 13, DD will be 8 so DS will have to move out for a few years

I'm with Duplodon. It's crazy to say weapon-dogs are safe or dismiss all the attacks on children. It's also silly to claim these dogs are 'soft' because they're more likely to be staffies than pitbulls! Regardless of breed, big powerful dogs are often bought by young men trying to look hard, and are then mistreated and goaded into aggression.
IMO any neighbourhood that has a problem with weapon-dogs, drugs and crime is not a safe place for kids to play out. OP says her views of the estate are based on 'local statistics' and what she has seen driving through, so I don't think she's BU to not want her DD playing there. I don't think it's judgemental to have an opinion of an estate based on local crime statistics. She hasn't judged the people who live there, just the dangers and problems relating to that place.

Oh ffs, I'm not saying let your children roam freely amongst dogs you think are dangerous, I'm saying it's not fair to assume the dogs are dangerous based on the breed you think it is. I'm not saying throw your kids into a kennel with them.

My point was is that these dogs are seen as dangerous because they are a breed most often owned by working class people. I'm willing to bet if you see a Labrador, Great Dane or Dalmatian walking down the street you don't think it's a dangerous dog. And yet the above breeds are just as capable of mauling your child as a rottie or a staffie.

I just think teaching your kids dogs are dangerous is a ridiculous over exaggeration. They are more likely to be injured in the car with you than in a dog attack.

Oh and yes she has judged the people who live there. I haven't seen any 'statistics' from the OP - where are they please?

I'm with Duplodon. It's crazy to say weapon-dogs are safe or dismiss all the attacks on children. It's also silly to claim these dogs are 'soft' because they're more likely to be staffies than pitbulls! Regardless of breed, big powerful dogs are often bought by young men trying to look hard, and are then mistreated and goaded into aggression.

No one is saying any of the dogs are safe but it is extremely stupid to stop your child going to a friends house because they might have one because they live on a council estate and to say because a dog is in a harness it's a danger to people. To actively look fora way out of sending your child on a playdate because you have drove through the estate and seen pitbulls in harnesses running loose, not sure why they would have a harness on of they are running loose then to assume the parent's will have dangerous dogs and hoards of teens waiting to do what?? to DD

So the people on the council estate just let their children play out and put them in danger because they are of a lower class, they are not able to make a judgement on whether or not it is safe for their child to play out? How many of your DDs friends have been mauled by these pitbulls running free in harnesses then op? Surely if the parent's are putting them in danger at least one had been attacked or attacked by a male teenager? Why is a male teenager a danger but a female teenager is not.

Of course people keep dogs as protection, for fighting or whatever else BUT to assume whenever you see a staffie or a pit bull that IT IS a dangerous/aggressive/fighting/protection dog is wrong - that is what posters have objected to. And it's the insinuation that because these dogs are on a council estate that it's almost certain they will be aggressive or dangerous.
The OP doesn't know the people with these dogs, do the parents of the kids in question actually have dogs themselves? She's just seen some out of a car window and jumped to a conclusion based on stereotype.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldnt let my kids play with a GSD that's been trained to chase and bite criminals for example, but then I wouldn't let my kids wander upto ANY strange dog and play with them, it's basic common sense.

The OP has posted this thread in AIBU, and said some pretty ludicrous and insulting things - does nobody judge posters in AIBU? I thought that was partly what is was for? People have told the OP she IBU and are therefore unreasonably judgy?