AIBU to be furious about this article and cancel my Guardian subscription?

[whycantwegoonasthree]

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/children-removed-from-family-home-over-parents-open-relationship

The children weren't removed because of their parents 'open relationship', they were removed because the parents were neglectful and didn't safeguard the children. The headline is a deliberate distortion.

This is a dreadful baity headline/article at the expense of the polyamorous community. I expect better from the guardian - to which I pay a f-ing subscription...

AIBU to cancel my Direct Debit?

We bought a house together in October, are doing it up and hope to move in March.

So I own half a house, DP owns half of two houses and K owns half a house. For clarity.

And missmustbeamug, I have 50% custody of my children, his are at university and sixth form boarding. No ones children are being neglected, today or any other day.

From reading the thread you seem desperate to convince mn that everything is hunky dory
Without stating obvious if everything is a-ok why are you so invested in telling folk
Clearly you’ve posted before,encountered opposition before.so I can’t figure your motive?

Lol, you’ve written to the editors. That an unrelated safeguarding reflects badly on polyamory
Please god,don’t give them the big descriptive of your relationship
You’ll come across a bit unhinged

OP you seem to have a problem with the words "open relationship" being used to describe the couples lifestyle in the newspaper article. You seem to think everyone now thinks that people who are in an "open relationship" abuse their children.

If you google you will find hundreds of newspaper articles concerned with children being abused by married couple and homosexual couples.

Do you think if one married couple have been found guilty of child abuse then ALL married couples must be abusing their children?

You are clearly overinvested in the article about the parents in an open relationship neglecting their children and YOU seem to think it is casting judgement on everybody who has chosen a lifestyle of sleeping around.

If the cap fits - wear it

Casual sex is not bad for you and it's important that people are taught this. It may be a matter of preference ie some people are only interested in sex in the context of a committed relationship, but overemphasising commitment and monogamy is actually harmful. Because people think that they have to commit/stay committed to someone they have had sex with, despite it being fairly obvious that this person is not good for them. Because monogamous marriages are just as likely to involve abuse as casual relationships (actually, more likely to involve prolonged abuse, because it's much easier to tell a casual shag to piss off, and that you will call the police if the person ever comes near you again, than it is to separate from someone you are married to/live with who has turned out to be abusive.) And casual sex can teach you how to detect an idiot or a predator.

No, DarlesChickens, one final time for the hard of thinking...

I have a problem with the fact that in both articles the 'open relationship' was presented as the main/sole reason for the removal of the children, when in fact there were multiple issues, and the openness of their relationship wasn't the reason per se, the way it was conducted was.

And that by doing so the media is propagating the myth that open relationships are inherently damaging to children and may lead to them being removed from their parent(s).

That is grossly inaccurate and has potentially very serious consequences for those choosing to do relationships differently.

And that by doing so the media is propagating the myth that open relationships are inherently damaging to children and may lead to them being removed from their parent(s)

I don't agree at all. The article says that the relationships these particular parents were having, and how they were conducting them, directly contributed to the neglect of their children. Which is all true.

Why do you think the truth should not be told? Why is your agenda more important than that?

And again, why are you determined that these people have anything at all to do with you?

Reanimated, couldn't agree with you more.

In addition, non-monogamy doesn't necessarily mean you have casual sex.

I don't especially enjoy casual sex as it happens. I prefer sex with people I am emotionally close to.

But that's just a preference not a recommendation. And it's probably because I'm terribly old-fashioned.

Ok, Tiny - here's a transcript of the independent article:

Judge puts three children up for adoption due to parents' open relationship

Both parents regularly met other partners while living in the same house, court heard

Three children are to be placed for adoption after social workers raised concerns about their parents' "open relationship".

Their father chose to see other women and their mother, who "frequented" a website called Plenty Of Fish and had relationships with men she met through the internet, a family court judge was told.

Judge Elizabeth Williscroft said the couple continued their "dysfunctional relationship" while living in the same home.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by Judge Williscroft following a private family court hearing.

The judge, who is based in Wolverhampton, said the children were all under five and could not be identified.

She said social services bosses at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had asked her to make decisions about the children's future.

Social services staff had described the couple's relationship as "open".

The couple had disputed the description.
But the judge said the man had chosen to see other women and "complete strangers" had visited the house to have sex with the woman.

"Father plainly chose to see other women," said Judge Williscroft in her ruling.
"Mother has stated her relationships with men on the internet began as a result - whatever the cause, they were seriously risky."

The judge added: "It is plain some complete strangers have visited her house while the children were there to have sex with her."
She went on: "They both continued their dysfunctional relationship living in the same home ... all of this must have been confusing for the children."

Social workers said the couple had also found it hard to supervise their children and Judge Williscroft added: "Mother was observed parenting 'from the sofa' and relying on others to keep the children safe from hazards."

Sorry op, can I ask, how did all this come about?

Is your dp married to another woman? Did you meet him first?

Things it doesn't mention that were pertinent to the case:

Living conditions
Learning difficulties
Mental health issues
Abuse

Etc.

You can't honestly tell me the reporting of this case was balanced and representative of the full circumstances?

Casual sex is not bad for you and it's important that people are taught this. It may be a matter of preference ie some people are only interested in sex in the context of a committed relationship, but overemphasising commitment and monogamy is actually harmful.

As I posted upthread when you stated you think RSE in schools should contain the message that “casual sex is not bad for you”, no-one is overemphasising commitment and monogamy in schools. The focus is on consensual and healthy relationships.

Jesus Christ, OP, don’t your children need you to spend a bit of your precious time with them?

That is grossly inaccurate and has potentially very serious consequences for those choosing to do relationships differently

I disagree. The article clearly states why the children were removed - hey were removed for their own protection, because the ADULTS involved failed to keep them safe from strangers entering their homes and seeing things that are not meant for young eyes.

The ADULTS in this "Open relationship" failed to keep the children safe because they selfishly put their own sexual needs first!

Like all selfish parents they failed to acknowledge that their parenting was not up to scratch or realise the very negative major impact their actions will have on their children's emotional and social development.

Why are you quoting the independent at me when I have told you I am only referencing the guardian article that was the subject of your OP?

And why do you think that multiple strangers visiting the house for sex when there were children there is NOT relevant?

I find your agenda here bizarre, tbh. And you still won't answer why you are aligning yourself with these people as if you share a lifestyle, when you say yours is nothing at all like it?

I am still not reading anything in that article that isn’t 100% true.

Beside op, from what you have said your setup is nothing at all like that. Why has it riled you so much?

I am afraid that no article will affect the feelings I already have towards this setup, so I wouldn't worry too much about representations of the poly community.

You can, and also because it's been grossly misrepresented below.

DP has been married for 23 years. For most of it their marriage has been consensually open on both sides. It is a happy and successful marriage.

I met DP around five years ago. Our relationship developed from friendship, to more than friendship, to love, to a committed relationship - as many relationships do.

K always knew about me, and indeed we met very early in my relationship with DP - after about two months or so.

And while things have developed in a way no be of us predicted, and we've all had to make adjustments along the way, at no point has anyone been cheated upon or lied to.

My ex husband wasn't told until later, but we were separated and then divorced so it was none of his business. He was told when my children were told because as a co parent it then became his business.

Suburban - my children are with their father today. I'll have them tomorrow.

Why won't you answer a very sensible and simple question?

If these peoples relationship is nothing at all like yours, why do you feel like they reflect badly on you and why they have anything to do with you?

And you still won't answer why you are aligning yourself with these people as if you share a lifestyle, when you say yours is nothing at all like it?

I'm not.

But the focus and bias of the reporting is, by aligning open relationships per se with risk to children and not outlining - or even mentioning many of the other multiple risk factors which led to the decision in this case.

That's why it made me angry.

Sorry whycantwegoonasthree, I know it’s absolutely none of my business, just curious really.

When you say it has developed unexpectedly do you mean you got involved more than you were initially expecting or did you/anyone have difficulties deciding on how time should be split up etc.?

But the focus and bias of the reporting is, by aligning open relationships per se with risk to children and not outlining - or even mentioning many of the other multiple risk factors which led to the decision in this case

But even without mentioning all the other risk factors there would be enough in what is written in that article for there to be a serious cause for concern.

Or do you think there wouldn’t? Taking everything at face value in that independent article, wouldn’t you agree that that was irresponsible, neglectful and harming the children involved?

—that isn’t another dig at you op, genuine question—

But you ARE.

But the focus and bias of the reporting is, by aligning open relationships per se with risk to children and not outlining - or even mentioning many of the other multiple risk factors which led to the decision in this case

That;s just nonsense. It's right there in the article. There is no hint at all that there would be any problem for children by parents having sensible open relationships.

you seem determined to find something here that does not exist, and claim ownership for your community of people who you should be at pains to distance yourself from. Do you realise you are achieving the exact opposite of what you actually want?