Or is the vicar? Noisy DCs in church

[drspouse]

Background so as not to drip feed, bear with me as this is horrendously long: we go to a fairly naice church in a large historic building, locally there is a sought after church secondary school but none of the church primary schools are over subscribed. We've been going to this church for 12 years and we have two DC, aged 4 and 1. The 4yo is being investigated for mild SN and has always, always been very "lively". DC2 is walking.

The church knows us. Current vicar has been there about as long as our DC1 and baptised both of them. Church has a side chapel which is open to the rest of the pews where there are baby/toddler toys, a mat to play on. One other family (who are new to the country and have a 10 month old) use this baby play area every week.

The 4yo goes to Sunday School in term time, one of us goes with him, as we take it in turns and it doesn't last the whole service, both of us get some time during the service actually in the church. He's just starting to be able to stay in for 10 minutes on his own. DC2 is still lively and, yes, noisy in the side chapel. The other regular family's baby isn't walking yet. When smaller, both he and our DC2 could be quietened by feeding or carrying around.

Because of the pressure for secondary admission, most of the families that come have primary aged children. I can think of a couple of other families who are regulars with young DCs e.g. one Sunday School teacher has an 18 month old but I think she is restrained sat with them on non-Sunday School weeks not in the side chapel.

Today was the first weekend of half term, no Sunday school, there were 2 other children at church apart from our "baby chapel" group, maybe 6 and 8, who were using a construction toy in the side chapel for part of the time. Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. Frankly the only way to stop this would have been to physically restrain DC1 leading to shouting, screaming and kicking. This could be seen from the main church. DC2 was very excited by this and was squeaking, and also as a new walker fell over 2 or 3 times and cried, and was cuddled, and then was quiet.

Half way through someone came in and said "did we know the other room was open, we could go there if we wished". We declined and said no, we wouldn't, because where would be the point in being at church if we were not in the church? we might as well stay home. This is the first time in four years anyone has said anything, and I was massively surprised. It's definitely not the first time we were noisy!

The vicar stopped me on the way out and repeated that something had to be done, that it was distracting, people had complained, and that it was "exciting the other children" (the ones quietly using a construction toy? or the 10 month old who was quiet?) I said that the answer was not for us to go out because there was no point in us going to church if we couldn't be IN church. He repeated that "something must be done".

How does your church run this? Can you give us any ideas for suggestions? We want to bring this up and make some constructive suggestions (though frankly if the church can't put up with noise, it can't put up with children, and it will be left with definitely nobody under 5 and probably nobody under 50).

The historic fabric means a glassed off area is not possible (and I'd feel massively excluded in an aquarium every week!). There's only one area out of the church where smaller children could play (so they couldn't run a creche at the same time as Sunday School). We'd also feel pretty excluded if we couldn't go on non-Sunday School weeks (which is probably 15-20 weeks of the year), and I wouldn't bother if we had to be in an area with "piped church", also. It's not a "praise band" church where listening through an audio or video link gets you the flavour of church, it's a trad but (we thought) friendly church with old fashioned liturgy.

I live, eat and breathe the SN 'world' and am fully aware of the very real struggles that SN bring.

So where on earth do you get the perception that children in care with SN are infallibly diagnosed, gooseberry? It just isn't so.

Your presumptions about steps op has taken. To be honest I don't see much, it's pretty much inaction rather than action. Whoever said light touch parenting was spot on - how do we know what can be achieved if we don't actually try? OP's behaviour with DC2, inaction wise, kind of leads one to believe that she was probably similarly light touch with DC1 too, rather than trying a more strenuous parenting route and finding it wanting.

What makes me think the children were out of sight, gooseberry, was:

Incidentally the side chapel has a waist high panel almost all the way down. It has two gates at either end that are also solid. Both our DC are quite short. You can't actually see them from the rest of the church except if they are sitting or standing on the pew. I bet you could see the teddy but not DC1! Only DC2 stood on the pew and only briefly

She also said:

When I said "this" could be seen from the main church I meant the teddy.

gooseberry, to be fair, autism and associated sns like ADHD are often not diagnosed until the children are older and dismissed as developmentally normal behaviours.

at 4yo we weren't even getting a consideration for diagnosis and being fobbed off. At 7 a paed who diagnosed severe DCD told us DS had no signs of autism. At 9yo CAMHs have diagnosed ASD, SPD, ADHD, Anxiety, Sleep disorder and Ds requires full time 1:1 in school.

Just because the OP's child has been in the care system, doesn't mean his possible SN have been picked up.

Reluctantly deciding to allow a behaviour in preference to a tantrum is a world away from 'enjoying' it.

So she enjoys seeing her 1 year old walking quietly out of sight of the rest of the congregation. Throw her out of church!

And again, gooseberry, you are ignoring all the efforts OP took to keep the children quiet in other ways.

I think seeing a teddy rising and falling at the side without visible human aid would be a particular visual distraction!

can people stop saying the OPS child was not running around!

Who has said that? What I, for one, said was they were not running around in anyone's eyeline.

Your presumptions about steps op has taken. To be honest I don't see much, it's pretty much inaction rather than action

Go back and read OP's posts then, bearing fully in mind that she knows her children best and she knows what does and does not work and when to pick her battles. I'm making no presumptions, I am going very strictly on the basis of the information that is in this thread.

It would be helpful if OP came back on thread.

I still think she should take dc out of the part of the service if they play up. Our services are recorded so you could listen later.

I think seeing a teddy rising and falling at the side without visible human aid would be a particular visual distraction!

But, when it is in a separate side chapel, it's one one which it is incredibly easy to avoid. Does it really merit a complaint, particularly when encountered in a family service in church? Posters upthread have attested to the fact that they normally see and hear much more disturbance in family services in church and the congregation clearly copes.

I think that's what this thread is about gruntled - You presume the OP's action and inaction has aforethought, whereas I just think it's thoughtless.

I think the vicar has put the OP on the defensive by his 'Something must be done comments'. I think I would have been upset by that too.

gooseberry, to be fair, autism and associated sns like ADHD are often not diagnosed until the children are older and dismissed as developmentally normal behaviours.

at 4yo we weren't even getting a consideration for diagnosis and being fobbed off. At 7 a paed who diagnosed severe DCD told us DS had no signs of autism. At 9yo CAMHs have diagnosed ASD, SPD, ADHD, Anxiety, Sleep disorder and Ds requires full time 1:1 in school.

Absolutely. It was just the idea that severe SN might go completely unnoticed by SWs, paediatricians and Foster parents that I was taking issue with.

gruntled, the fact 3 people felt the need to say something to her AND the vicar over the course of the service, does kind of hint that this wasn't a normal kind of disturbance/disruption.

I went to church for years, there were always noises, but when people felt the need to complain about them, you could generally guarantee it was excessive noise over and above the normal that people will tolerate.

gooseberry :)

ok, the op did say 'mild sns' whatever those might be, so there is a chance they've been missed.

but then i have a personal grudge over that as my ds's sns turned out to be anything BUT mild despite his presentation at 4!

The OP is not necessarily an objective narrator, though?

They weren't running around in anyone's eyeline. They were out of sight

I don't know if this helps, Gruntled, but back on page 15 OP said We had one that was running up and down the aisles, or tantrums. We did a lot of running up and down the aisles but DC1 is too old for that to amuse now

Perhaps some might feel that says a little about what the mum considers appropriate?

perhaps there are aisles in teh side chapel, you know out of sight behind the partition.

I guess that's possible in theory Blackeyed - I have to admit it wouldn't be like any side chapel I've seen as they're usually quite modest in size and certainly haven't contained "aisles", but who knows ...

Why does everyone assume that the fact people complained means automatically that they were justified? As these pages regularly attest, people complain about the most ridiculous things at times. In a church, they really should be more tolerant. If you've got to turn your head to see what it is you're unhappy about, maybe the quickest remedy is to turn it back again.

But they have been tolerant for 4 years, maybe they just felt enough was enough. I don't think its fair to keep blaming the rest of the congregation, everyone has a breaking point. I think if it was the first time the family went to the church you would have a point but no one has complained for years so I think the congregation have been tolerant and its no unreasonable to say we need to change something.

The thing is, having children in adult-oriented church services is hard work. Also the dynamic is constantly changing as static babies become mobile, a compliant three year old becomes a boisterous four year old, etc, etc. Some children really are easier to settle than others with books/snacks/jigsaws/Ipads. They may learn to engage with the service eventually, but it's a big jump for them when they can't see/read/understand any of it. If the parent is fully engaged with shushing and distracting, then they may not get much from the service either. And may well distract others around them.

It's a moot point whether people think you "let your child run about noisily" or "are desperately trying to keep your child still and failing because at 3/4, they aren't 100% compliant".

It's your call whether you want to keep going to church anyway, for the fellowship and to keep in the flow of things, even though you have the child to look after, or whether to just skip out on the weeks where the children's age appropriate activites don't run.

Why ON EARTH wouldn't you want to (after singing and children's address) take your small children into a room where they can build actual relationships with older church members and each other, receive age appropriate teaching that will be meaningful to them, have a play and a biscuit and some juice? Surely this is an arrangement where everyone is happy and catered for, and you would only refuse to be obtuse? I don't want my dad's abiding memories of church to be having to be quiet while an adult talks interminably, feeling bored and cooped up, with her parents stressed, while at the same time getting away with behaviour she knows quite well would be considered naughty at school. That isn't what church is about and surely you would be making a rather destructive point if you were to insist on this. Children and adults do someone's have different needs and they can't always be met simultaneously in the same space.

I will go slightly further and say that the only person the above arrangement benefits is the parent, who doesn't have the hassle of taking their child out and who must then suffer the reduced pleasure of listening on an audio link. Yet having children always involved putting them first, and at times dealing with their behaviour, and this doesn't stop just because it's Sunday. There are still plenty of reasons to go to church in this set up.

My dh and I take it in turns to take the kids out (where they have a whale of a time) and it's just one of those things. It's never occurred to me that my four year old should really be welcome to run up and down the aisle, or my eight month old to make a din loud enough for the vicar to raise his voice. Not being able to do exactly as we like doesn't mean we're unwelcome. The presence of boundaries and expectations doesn't mean we're disapproved of. I am well aware that there older members of the congregation wouldn't choose the style of worship music and many other things about the sermon.

Or maybe, granny, they were tolerant for up to four years because there was nothing to tolerate, i.e. the congregation all felt that OP's family's conduct was fine?

Or maybe, gruntled, this was the accumulation of years of distracting behaviour and this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back? Seems more likely to me. OP's post talks about behaviour over a longer period than just a week, she's enjoyed watching her child walk further up and down the aisle for example, and that is probably over a period of weeks at least. This issue was most likely a grower, and people's patience eventually wears out.