to think children should be randomly reallocated at birth?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I think this would solve a lot of problems.

For instance, I have a tendency to experience anxiety. My DC therefore both inherit my anxiety genes and also learn from my anxious behaviours (even if I try to minimise this) - a double whammy. If they had been reallocated to someone else, and I had been allocated someone else's biological DC (perhaps with a genetic tendency to feel angry, say; something I suffer less often), this might potentially all get ironed out.

OK, so there are some potential problems with the scheme. But AIBU to think it might have its advantages?

My DS is now adult and quite a few things have gone wrong and in my darker moments, I have come to the conclusion that someone else would have been a much better mother than me to him. I wonder if I have magnified some of the negative traits I have myself, in him, as well as passing on grotty genes. There are people in this world who are so good at helping difficult children and I think he needed one of those as a mother.

However, there are also a lot of people who would not tolerate him, and if he had been allocated to one of these, he would have come off far worse.

So, I am probably the best fit he is going to get, in a difficult world, but could have done with a lot more help and resources and expert knowledge to help me along the way.

I wrote a children's story once where they went to a world which had this sort of idea. Only people specialised. So you'd choose between baby years, toddlers etc. The baddy was used to dealing with teenagers and was awful

But it wasn't meant to be an ideal world, issues such as people didn't really feel they belonged anywhere, and the parents of the younger ones tended to be over indulgent because the fall out came later.

Funny idea really, and wouldn't work in practice.

I think it would work well if everyone were randomly allocated someone else's house and income at age 50 (or thereabouts). It might make people work more enthusiastically for fairness and equality in society.

Yes YABU . . . and a bit mad

I know this is supposed to be lighthearted. But for me - and another 200,000 or so people - placed for adoption in the UK in the days when it was difficult for mothers to keep babies conceived outside marriage, this is exactly what happened to us. We were randomly reallocated to married couples who wanted a child/children and either could not conceive themselves or just wanted to add a bit of variety to theor existing families. Usually their only qualification to adopt was that they were married, solvent and of the right religious denomination. No effort was made to match the children to their new families - it was just assumed they were blank pieces of paper who would just somehow turn into a real family. My own "siblings" were a random mix of nationalities, social backgrounds, colourings etc. The only unifying factor was the professed religion of the birth mother. I should like to be able to say that these blended families worked out fine. But in my experience - and that of many other adoptees/adoptive parents they were an unmitigated disaster. And the legacy goes on. So sorry for lacking a sense of humour! But I actually found this joke quite upsetting.

Self fulfilling prophecy if you keep assuming your children are going to be anxious they will be anxious.

This is the strangest thread I've read today anyway

The Puritans in New England in the 1600s did something like this. When children reached adolescence, they were sent to live with another family. The idea was that they would learn new skills/trade and that they would not be spoiled because their own parents might be too soft on them.

They were a harsh lot.

Why would you ever want your child being taken away from you? I'm actually baffled by this really

Da fuq?!

I always remember a guy a worked with, (who was a total idiot), had an adopted daughter.

She had severe ADHD and various other SN. He said, and I'll never forget his face as he said it, 'If we could, we'd send her back'.

I think most biological parents wouldn't even consider that.

Hmm. I guess OP didn't think of that Lago I know it didn't occur to me. Sorry for your experiences

2016 - I don't think that was just the NEw England puritans at all - it was common in all parts of England for youngsters (aged 12/13) to go off to live in anoother household - the boys would learn a trade and the girls would go into domestic service very often. It was part of the social structure and, like you say, partlyl because they thought the child needed to be brought up by someone else at this point.

Forget babies, trade in your teens... maybe a more popular option?

Lighthearted? My first response was 'You can keep your fucking hands off my child!' - and she's 33.

The Nazis stole Polish children and re-allocated them to German families.

toffeeboffin

That's so sad :(

What if the baby you are allocated dies neonatally?

And you know the one you carried is alive somewhere.

I swear I was switched at birth, I couldn't be any different to the rest of my family if I tried!

I would love to get my hands on the lucky cow who ended up with my probably disappointed real parents while I got saddled with hers

*Or his. Maybe theirs a reason my dad always writes my name as Michael?!

I could see this policy causing problems as children grew up.

For example, if the child you were allocated didn't like your rules on bedroom tidiness, bed time, or video games, would they be able to request re-allocation to a family with less strict rules? There would be queues round the block of teenagers requesting reallocation!

It's one thing to complain on MN because your feckless mother has cutted up the pear that you asked her to cut up for you - it's altogether another one when the cutted-up pear leads to the child sacking the parent.

*There's. The shame of it

It is pretty random the way it is- the child is just as likely to be like MIL or great uncle Fred as you!
I have a theory that things jump a generation. My mother's great niece is the one most like her in the family. I think that I am like my father's mother.

I like the idea of switching at about 13... Used to happen in mediaeval days, apprenticeship s/ in service etc. Let's face it, our grumpy teens are often all sweetness and light to adults who are not their parents. A sort of boarding school scheme (or those French Exchanges schools organise. In fact, love the idea of an international dimension. Widens the circle of tolerance wonderfully...)

hmmm i know a bit about genetics. I also know too much about anxiety.

OP i'd be concerned about your children inheriting the G.F gene. (much evidence of this gene is on mumsnet).

You can, however teach them that it is possible to overcome being GF by considering how anything they post on internet forums can offend or upset other posters. If they have two working copies of the empathy gene, this will mask the GF mutation and prompt them not to hit "start thread" without thinking first.

Yes randomly swap teenagers at 13. Knowing my luck though I would get one who was used to having every single thing done for them.

Swapping teens is the way to go.

I don't want to swap mine for good but I wouldn't mind lending them out every now and again. They could be sent to the miserable fuckers who need lighthearted displayed in big neon lights across everything. It would be kill or cure i think.....

Does it have to be just children we swap with? I would be happy to exchange for a nice dog to take for walks or a mad old granny i could watch Pointless with while drinking gin.

i wonder if this happens anyway without our knowledge. our lovely 12 year olds are swapped the night of their 13th birthday with a clone.

its ok though. they do come back - but not until they have children of their own.