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?

Just say no then!

I really don't see the issue. I went to a primary that had an intake of posher kids and an intake of 'council house' kids (as you would describe)

TBH, I do recall asking my mum if I could go on a playdate (about the same age) and mum just said no! End of discussion. I just said no to said friend. Caused me no issues in the classroom. She probably had the same weird reasons you do

Now I have kids of my own, I wouldn't give a toss if my 'attitude' offended someone. If you have concerns, say no.

Its not the time to force them to try different foods of try and get them over their dog fear, parents do that indeed

roslyndee I just had to remove a spider from my dd's room. Both my kids are at home at the moment. The spider was the size of the top of my little finger. I caught it in a plastic pot. I did what I always do, I showed the spider to the kids, and they gave it a name (Bob Orangey!) and on this occasion I asked them if they wanted to touch the cage (plastic pot) they did.

I overcame my own fear of spiders by gradual exposure to spiders (small at home) and big (at a kind of exotic animals petting zoo).

This is in relation to your earlier comment It's daft to pander to your child's fear of dogs, why would you want them to be terrified of every dog that walks past...

Because I feel it is possible to overcome fears but if it is genuine phobia, which I did not have, I would not tackle I without proper help.

[looking for a spider emotion!]

yes you're right Buds, it is their parents' job, but it's certainly not my job to pander to their fussy/precious DC! I don't do that with my own, why would I do that with someone else's?

• addstudentdinners2 I was agreeing with someone elses quote but I think making guests feel comfortable is called being a good host.

Correction...
Because I feel it may be possible to overcome irrational fears and when a person genuinely wants to overcome them and gently exposes themselves to something they have an irrational fear of .... but if it is genuine phobia, which I did not have, I would not tackle a phobia without proper help.

If someone does not want to make their guests feel comfortable I am guessing they don't want to have those guests visit. Which is what I think the OP was trying to access. Will the other parents look after my child in a way that makes them and I feel comfortable.

If the answer were no, I am guessing the OP would have their answer too.

assess not access!!

But it's not the child's fear. It's the OP's fear.

And I repeat: my kids are not dogs, and I won't shut them away just to pacify the parent of one of my younger child's friends. Or do teenage guests not count as guests?

motherinferior I personally speaking am not talking about other children I am talking about animals and irrational fears.

If the OP has a fear of dogs rather than the child then she may wish to explore this (or not). From her opening post I felt it was a fear of certain types of dogs, which I would not necessarily say was irrational.

I don't shut my dog away to pacify adults, and he only gets put out of the way of children who are nervous as he is a very large dog (German shepherd)
I believe the OPs fear of certain dogs is irrational. you can't judge all dogs because of what the papers say, just as she can't judge those of us living on council estates because of what the papers say.

I have unfriended several people on Facebook over the last couple of days because their first response to the Nepal earthquake was "But what about the animals?" I think there are a few people not far from that disgusting attitude on this thread.......

hak people's lives aren't in danger because the OP doesn't like our choice of dog!
you can't compare our feelings for our dogs with what is happening in Nepal. that's horrendous.
of course in a situation such as that then people are the priority but to say my pet is unimportant because the OP doesn't like his genetics is wrong!

Th'e ops not scared of the council estates mother's dogs, she is scared of the status dogs with harnesses she has sen whilst driving through the estate so is scared the 'council estate mother' will let her DD play out unsupervised which she doesn't allow at home.

All the op needs to do is ask if the parents let visiting friends play out unsupervised because she is concerned about her coming into contact with the dogs who are loose.

I don't agree with the Ops wording and she does come across to me as snobby and is posting stereotypical fear's of council estates and the people who live on them and i'm not sure she hasn't exaggerated slightly.

But
If she has seen loose dogs with teenagers using them as status dogs and is worried about them having access to her dd then fair enough, she is not comfortable letting dd play out without supervision due to these status dogs. I myself would be worried about this but i would simply ask the parent's instead of assuming they will put her dd at risk because they are from a council estate. I myself have breed's used as status dog's but would have concerns about my kid's playing in an area where there are teenagers with unleashed big dog's no one knows are safe or not and i obviously don't think they are vicious just because of their breed.

singing I honestly believe she added that part in to ram home her point of it being a terrible place to be because she has been reading far too many papers . if it is true and she was that bothered by them she would have mentioned them rather than the teenagers!

fattymcfatfat that's what i mean by stereotypical, most of the stuff op has posted just seem's to be everything bad people would associate with what happens on a council estate and you see printed in the papers. If she has seen the status dogs loose in harnesses with teenagers using them to appear hard then fair enough but it just seems everything she has mentioned from the teenage boys to the dog's seem's exaggerated, idk if it is or not, only the Op knows.

She can ask the mother's, i think that's what most people who live on a private estate would do but she doesn't seem to want to as they look at her funny and haven't accepted her offer of a coffee so instead want's to know how to get out of the visits

yep. I agree. I don't agree with haks theory though I think it's a bit extreme

I honestly believe she added that part in to ram home her point of it being a terrible place

So you think the OP is exaggerating? Because what she saw can't be true? Get real, of course these places exist we just wish they didn't. Near where I live there are 2 estates with bad reputations. Crime, antisocial behaviour, drug-raids, broken glass everywhere, hooded gangs with weapon-dogs. I have friends who live there and they're desperate to move. Estates like this are NOT safe places for kids to play. They are not desirable places to live AT ALL. You're not fooling anyone by saying they are! If you live somewhere like this, accept your DC will miss out on many friendships because most mums won't risk their kids playing there, its not personal its just common sense. If you want mums to trust you, go the extra mile to prove you'll keep their kids safe. Even though many families are lovely there are lots of drunk, violent, crack-addicted criminals and gangs hanging around estates like these. You can't blame people for being scared of places like this, it's not media-hype, they can go see it with their own eyes. It's not snobbery, its a social problem that isn't going away any time soon. Oh and before anyone tells me how 'nice' their estate is I'm not saying all estates are like this but some are. If the OP has seen estates like this I don't blame her thinking all council estates are dangerous places.

no one has said places like this ddon't exist. what we have taken offence to is the stereotypical bullshit andthe assumption that just because someone lives on an estate they don't care for their kids properly. or that only dogs in council estates are dangerous. or that teen siblings can't have their friends round because all they do is drink and do drugs.
that is stereotyping because the OP doesn't know this to be true and refuses to speak to the mother's about it!

Fair enough if that's how bad the estate's are where her dd has been invited to play, some are but instead of making excuses to get out of her dd going because they might let dd play out, they might drink or smoke, they might let her play near status dogs, they might have teen's coming in and out or they might let their kids play amongst discarded syringes, pit bulls and hooded teens she should just ask them instead of making up excuses because they might be like that because they live on a council estate. I doubt the parent's inviting her dd for playdate's and parties are crack addled, heroin injecting, pit bull owning 'council estate mother's'. There probably just decent people like your friends living on a council estate inviting her dd round because their kids are friends with her. Seriously because people live on estates like this they are incapable of keeping kids safe. Swings both ways regarding friendships, it's not just the council estate kids who miss out on them for living on a bad estate

'Will the other parents look after my child in a way that makes them and I feel comfortable'

Italian is spot-on.
If a parent had refused to shut dog away in days when my DSD was scared of dogs, I'd question whether I wanted them looking after her at all. Because to me, a guest feeling safe (especially a child) is way more important than my dog's comfort. I'd find it hard to respect someone who put their dog before a child.
It's cruel to make a child quake in fear on a play date because you refuse to put your dog in another room.

Likewise, a parent who refuses to supervise 7-year-old on a play-date and thinks it's too much hassle to keep them in house/garden is not someone I want looking after my kid. You're demonstrating complete lack of respect for anyone who does things differently to you. Luckily I've never come across this 'my way or the highway' attitude amongst DSC' friends' mums. Everyone I know is willing to put a bit of effort in to make children feel safe and welcome.

and because they live on council estate they should go that extra mile??

Why to prove they are decent, really, because you live on a council estate you should prove your not scum and capable of looking after someone's kid

Singing, I agree with the extra mile thing. I live in isolated rural area and have to go the extra mile to prove to parents I will not let their kids wander in fields alone, get lost in woods, swim in rivers/ponds or fall out of trees. Do I resent the extra reassurance needed? No. I don't feel offended either.

Mums on council estates where there's a problem with crime/dogs/drugs face different issues- they need to reassure mums they'll keep kids safe from undesirable people, drunks, needles and dogs.

I don't see it has anything to do with parenting ability or being 'capable' or 'decent'. It's about sending child to a new alien environment where child is unaware of the hazards.

Likewise, a parent who refuses to supervise 7-year-old on a play-date and thinks it's too much hassle to keep them in house/garden is not someone I want looking after my kid.

That's exactly why i wouldn't invite your DC's because if you don't think i can make a judgement on whether or not it is safe to play in the front street or if i am incapable of asking what a child would like to eat and making sure they are fed, not scared of the dogs then yes it is too much hassle.

Sorry DD cant play out unsupervised
Oh ok, that will cause problems as DDs friends all play in the street on their bikes and scooter's so she will probably want to go out with them with your DD when they knock on her, if this is a problem for your DC then it's probably best she doesn't come as it might cause problems
DD doesn't like dogs
That's fine, i always gate them in another room when dd has friend's come around

Not shit Singing lives on that horrible estate down the road and has only gone and invited DD round, how will i get out of it