To be worried about these children based on a small window into their life?

[Itsmethechubbyfunster1]

To start, I know I'm being a tad UR. My judgeypants are so far up my own backside they are coming out of my mouth.

DP and I went out for breakfast today. Opposite us was a family with two small children aged maybe 1ish and 2ish.
They were both filthy. No coats, no socks (not warm today and was drizzling outside) the little girls hair looked like it hadn't been brushed for days.
Both parents were eating, kids had nothing. Swigging coke out of baby bottles.

Neither parent said a single word to either child until the older one started banging her head against her high hair repeatedly and mum told her to 'shut up being annoying'. That was the only exchange the whole time.

I have a toddler, I know it's tiring, I know sometimes you forget the coat, I know they get dirty, I know they smear food in their hair and they can go from pristine to child protection messy in 0.2 seconds but it just felt like too many variables and I was left feeling very uneasy and I'm still thinking about those two babies now.

[Idefix]

So it is long term serious damage whereby the poor/neglectful parenting choices leave a legacy of poor development and sadly poor parenting choices with their own children many years into the future? I get that there is also that kind of serious damage too. But otherwise your right coffee I don't get it.

[sconequeen]

TendonQueen- well said!

And on the subject of "lifestyle choices", let's remember that in recent cases of mass child sexual abuse, there was reluctance for many years to address the problem on the basis that the victims had made "lifestyle choices" which were not to be questioned.

I am also astounded that some people are so anxious to be "non-judgy" that they will not face up to the fact that many children are suffering from neglect and abuse which is affecting their lives both now and in the longer term.

I am categorically not saying that the children OP saw are being neglected because there is not enough information to know that. However, there were a combination of "red flags" which suggest that things were not as they should be.

[GayByrne]

This MN apologist shite is really making my tits itch. Seems to be so prevelant these days more so than in years gone.

OP - you know what you saw, we all know what you saw. What are the chances that a ton of innocent circumstances came together in a perfect storm scenario to create a snapshot of two piss poor parents with their poor kids out for the morning? Or is it just that you saw two prime examples of piss poor parents out for the morning with their poor little ones?

You decide.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Well, actually, perhaps we don't get to decide as individuals but society does get to decide whether there is neglect. There is a legislative framework which allows this, and which allows the state to take action if it is considered to be in the best interests of the child

The family courts (where these cases tend to end up) has made it very clear in several high court appeals,that we should not be using them to socially engineer families. They do not aim for an ideal of perfection they aim for adequate.

They are also quite mindful that different parents do things differently.

You can read the published judgements some are quite interesting.

[sconequeen]

They do not aim for an ideal of perfection they aim for adequate.

Yes, I am realistic enough to recognise that "adequate" is the goal and I fully accept that there are different ways of parenting adequately. Neglect is where the care is not adequate. What OP saw suggested that these children might well be neglected because of the combination of things she observed.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

what the op saw is just as likely to be parenting that is not up to her standard.

And every single one of us could be just as likely to to fail someone else's standards at any time. No matter how great at parenting we think we are.

Because that's what happens when you asses others abilities based on a very small snap shot and without the benefit of context.

In essence the combination of things in one very short period of time is no socks,coke in a bottle,no interaction.

When considering neglect on interaction no professional in their right mind would base a decision on just one interaction during a meal time.

With appropriate clothing it's much the same and the term would usually be used to cover much more than missing socks and shoes on children of that age in spring.

The coke in a bottle would result in a brief chat about cups and beakers but it would not touch on the contents other than healthy start information none of which anybody can force anybody else to comply with.

We all go through life deciding certain parenting styles or choices are great or piss poor and we get to make those choices for our own children,what we don't get to do is hold other parents up to our own standards and decide with any authority that they are guilty of a type of child abuse that by its nature is usually required to be based on fairly consistent behaviour because of one hour.

If we did get to do that would it be ok for me to decide everybody who didn't use ERF car seats or used many typical sleep training techniques was neglectful?

[Only1scoop]

I've never actually seen baby bottles with coke in them

Only read about them on MN

[Aermingers]

I don't really think you can blame lack of money for giving babies coke. Milk is cheaper than coke, water is free, even squash is cheaper and doesn't have caffiene in it.

I actually find it quite offensive that lack of money is used as an excuse for poor parenting. There are a lot of brilliant parents who have very little money.

There was a poster on here the other day talking about a boy who was being sent to school in rags. She contacted the office about donating the trousers and they tried to gently tell her it wouldn't make a difference because the mother just didn't care. She was all in a tiz because this woman was being 'judged'. Despite me pointing out that help with school uniform was available, the school would probably have offered help and that you can get school clothes for a couple of quid nobody on the thread would accept that this woman was anything other than a total victim. Apparently sending your child to school in rags is within the acceptable bounds of parenting.

I don't think judgement is always the bad thing that people on here make it out to be. Judgement is an effective tool for society to use to stop people doing things which are harmful to others.

There are probably a lot of parents at that school who are very short of money and would rather spend money on things other than school uniform but don't because they'd be ashamed to send their child into school in rags. There are probably parents at that school who have gone through the embarrassment and hassle of asking the school or council for help.

I think when it comes to children we need to understand a little less and judge a little more. Not judging can just lead to perpetuating the problem because you're telling them that harming their children is okay, especially if they can give you a sob story. And it's really not.

[KERALA1]

Think it's the combination of factors that would worry me. Family at our school all smoke in car, with kids in, and give children adult sized magnums for breakfast . They are all fat, kids didn't start off fat but are now. But she is a loving engaged mum and they are always laughing so sure kids having a happy life just a shame on the health front.

[PlumpingThePartTimeMother]

I'd feel concerned at the clump of factors altogether (no interaction from any party, not dressed warmly and no food provided for kids) too op. Sadly there isn't much you can do about the situation.

Give your kids a hug and try to put it out of your mind, or make a donation to the NSPCC. In fact, do both.

[Coffee1234]

I knew a police officer once whose job was in child protection. She said if she was out and about and saw a filthy child she'd have a closer look. If the child looked happy - as most of them did - she'd move on.

Obviously a simplistic explanation of her job which I'm sure was loads more complicated in real life. However, it's pretty much what the OP was observing - the children were dirty, inappropriately dressed for the weather AND they didn't look happy. Likely, there was a problem.

[sphare]

I think 'gut feelings' are very important. As is instinct that something is not quite right. The OPevidently is empathic and emotionally intelligent; far from judgemental.

It's difficult though, as the OP was writing, what could she actually do? That is where things are tricky. Approaching the family? Doubt any of us would. Call the police? Seems drastic doesn't it, could any of us? And there in lies the problem and why so many of these poor children slip through the net. It's very hard to 'do something' as there are no obvious channels.

Also, the whole bending over backwards to be non judgemental does not really help, sometimes a judgement has to be made and these kind of children need someone to be 'judgemental' - or rather, observant and empathic to their needs, not to those of the parents.

Sometimes, sadly, gut feelings are right.

[IPityThePontipines]

I don't understand the rush not to judge, particularly where there are umpteen cases where a bit of judging and line-drawing would have led to very different outcomes.

Neglect can be very harmful indeed. Unless you've seen a four year old having a total clearance - that's every teeth in their head removed, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss poor dental health either.

I think you can tell the difference between scruffy from eating/playing and the grimy look of a neglected child, they aren't the same.

In this case OP, there wasn't anything you could do. But I would hate this thread to put anyone off reporting something if they were in the position to do so.

There was the recent case of Callum Watson, where a woman attended a playgroup with a child she claimed was her cousin's. She didn't play with the child, just left him in a pushchair against the wall. One of the other mothers was very concerned, repeatedly told the playgroup leaders about it, but they did nothing.

Only if turned out there was no cousin, Callum was actually her own child and she murdered him shortly afterwards. Not manslaughter, murder.

I'm sure if the concerned mother had posted on here, there would have been people taking about "snapshots" too.

Lots of other cases where things were dismissed as "snapshots" when they were actually opportunities to save a child's life.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

How many of you would have even registered it if it had been a Chubba cup lolly instead of coke?

[DuncanQuagmire]

" I have a toddler, I know it's tiring, I know sometimes you forget the coat, I know they get dirty, I know they smear food in their hair and they can go from pristine to child protection messy in 0.2 seconds "

well there you go then

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

The vast majority of parents even ones that don't quite meet with your approval or standards are not murders or anything even close to that.

And one who does meet your standards and approval is not less likely to be.

[Itsmethechubbyfunster1]

Needasockamnesty you are just spectacularly missing every point.

I understand about different standards of parenting.
I also understand about early risk indicators for neglect. The fact is, both those babies showed several risk indicators. Sure, there could have been explanations for all of the things coming together in perfect harmony for BOtH children, but equally they could have been indicators of a poor home life.

Which made me feel uneasy.
That is not me judging them for different parenting standards to mine. That is me feeling uneasy about witnessing many variables that are risk indicators.
It is nothing to do with any socio- economic context.

[Aermingers]

I believe in the Baby P case one of the factors which was blamed was the fact that the area had lots of transient immigrant workers so nobody really picked up on what was happening and reported it. People didn't stay long enough to know something was going on, were often out working and when they did hear things often couldn't understand what they'd heard.

I remember someone from the Guardian visited the area and really struggled to find someone who's been there at the time a few months later. The story is here: www.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/16/baby-p-family


It does show that when a community is engaged with each other they do act as a safeguard for children and can raise concerns.

I hate to say it but I suspect there are quite a few Mumsnetters who if they'd lived next door wouldn't have done a thing on the grounds it would be 'judgemental'.

[Aermingers]

Do chubba lollies have the same quantities of caffiene in them?

[TooManyMochas]

I would have felt the same as the OP, although I agree there's nothing she could've done. For me the worrying thing would be the impression that the DCs possibly weren't loved, not the coke-in-a-bottle 'lifestyle choice' stuff, however non-ideal.

Sometimes a judgement has to be made and these kind of children need someone to be 'judgemental' - or rather, observant and empathic to their needs, not to those of the parents

Yes!

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

OP.

That vast majority of the time it is not possible at all to distinguish actual real neglect in someone who is totally unknown to you from a bad day or unusual day.

Things like red flags and indicators for neglect would not be treated as such unless they are repeated and consistent.

You can have a check list of things to be aware of in your hand and tick loads in a single occasion outside of a home,and it still would not be considered to be acceptable to instantly jump on neglect and doing so is liable to result in you being labeled as a bit of a unprofessional loose cannon and rarely being taken seriously.

That is the entire point and the bit you do not appear to be able to get your head round. it really is not as simple as .....

No socks tick
No coat tick
No conversation tick
Fizzy drink tick
Bingo must be neglect.

It may well be a neglect issue it also is just as likely to not be.

You do not know these parents or these children, you have absolutely no way of changing that and nobody anywhere is going to try and track them down based on the information you have posted if you did report anything.
but if you are that convinced that something dreadful is going on why don't you give the nspcc a call. They will be very lovely about it make all the right noises, validate how much of a superior parent you must be and listen to you and you will be doing your civic duty.

What's stopping you?

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Aermingers.

Haven't a clue I've never checked because I've never wanted to try them.

But most decent quality chocolet especially dark contains not dissimerler amounts and very few people would bat an eyelid at a toddler having a hot choc or home made dark choc pudding or a serving of green and blacks.
Tea contains about twice as much and loads of people give it to their kids and it's been a not abnormal thing for years.

The usual argument touted against coke is the sugar. How many of us would point and say child abuser to someone handing their child or grand child a sweetie lolly? Despite the lolly being much worse teeth wise?

Give it a go start a "my childs grandparents gave my 2yo a boiled sweet lolly and half a bar of green and blacks, I'm furious at there attitude towards teeth" thread and watch your arse get handed to you on a flaming plate full of grips.

[Feminine]

I still can't believe how you are still stubbornly refusing to see the point that op made on Sunday? needs
Why on earth are you looking at a way to defend coke in a bottle now?
You know full well, all the things mentioned are markers.
especially altogether.

[TheNewStatesman]

The OP was there. There is such a thing as gut feeling.