To think that 'middle class' parents get away with murder

[catfunk]

I grew up in a beautiful but modest part of the north with a fair amount of poverty and unemployment. Lots of families were under social services' care (?) police called out a lot, etc.

I now live in a fairly expensive city in the south, a fairly left wing liberal place where people party, lots of mums are 'trendy' types and generational wealth is quite common.

It struck me the other day that if the parents in my home town behaved like the parents in my current home there'd be real repercussions.
Noisy house parties whilst kids are in bed upstairs, parents getting drunk and staying out all night, recreational drug taking and being too hungover to do the school run. But it's ok because they're drinking champagne and expensive gin instead of tenants, and expensive cannabis tinctures instead of smoking resin?

None of the kids seem unhappy or affected and they do have lovely family times together of course but AIBU To think this is not fair ?

Drinking excessively and taking drugs is not a class thing, it’s a personality thing.

At the end of the day, parents of all “classes” are all the same. We want to have some children, but also have fun with drinking and parties, and not bother with cleaning or cooking too often. The fact is that if you earn the money to afford champagne, pub lunches, a cleaner and even an occasional weekend nanny, you can do all those things and still make sure your children and house are clean, well fed,
looked after and entertained - and if you can’t afford those things and don’t want to do them yourself then you simply can’t have that fun without neglecting them! It’s as simple as that really. I mean being able to afford a cleaner and take the family out for lunch at the weekend and pay for weekend nannies when you want a rest day etc is a major motivating factor for people to go out and earn money. So of course they avoid judgement...because they take steps to make sure the children and house aren’t neglected. People who have dirty houses and leave the kids alone and bored without food when they are hungover in bed aren’t being judged for having a party, they are being judged for neglecting their children!

The vitriol against the MM family, which is ongoing after all these years, and prevalent in this thread shocks me. Deeply unpleasant.

And what is also evident here is the level of judgement of parents against parents. SS have certain specified things they look out for and procedures and protocols for showing interest and intervention at various levels, which only reach the levels of removing children in a small number of cases, despite what many think in terms of believing SW are just looking to remove children all the time (especially WC ones).

I am glad it is SS making these judgements and not other parents, because other parents often seem to want to hang lots out to dry…..only perfection in parenting (and their definition of it…which fits with what they do) is acceptable.

Of course it’s right that there is a system to safeguard children. And there are children who need keeping an eye on, families who need support and education and those who need to have their children taken away. The system does need to be robust and it needs to be objective and based on risk of genuine harm.

I agree that MC parents have more scope to slip under the radar and not draw attention to some of the behaviours which might be flags for concern. I also agree that some groups in society have such a level of distrust of authority and inability or unwillingness to engage with them, that instantly, this behaviour can make them look suspicious, when sometimes there is nothing there at all.

Most of the time, concerns raised about all classes lead to a procedural low level check and that’s the end of it….fortunately. Sometimes a low level support is put in place - a training course is recommended, or some monitoring or other agencies involved for a period. And that’s then the end of it. It is only a small number of cases that go significantly further from any class. But today, there is a more joined up system. There will always be cases where children do t get the support they need and cases slip through the net and parents evade detection….but think these are fewer. Many of the cases people mention on here refer to their own childhoods many years ago, when the systems were not in place and many children were failed. It is terrible with Ling term outcomes. But I honestly do believe, that whilst the system will never be perfect by any means, it is better now than it has been.

@Susannahmoody

Bohomeian = rough

Like comparing Geldof and Gallagher

Is bohemian rough? I don't think I agree.

Sure, many of those who live bohemian lives are not the artists and poets of old and are instead seeking alternative lives to the "rat race" as they'd see it. Some through choice, others as drop-outs from that world.

The Geldof comparison is probably old Bohemian - eloquent, opinionated, artistic.. You could imagine a Geldof that didn't make it living in Brighton or West Cork and having a lovely time. (Note - I'm not saying Geldof was anything but a good parent.)

@WombatChocolate

The vitriol against the MM family, which is ongoing after all these years, and prevalent in this thread shocks me. Deeply unpleasant.

And what is also evident here is the level of judgement of parents against parents. SS have certain specified things they look out for and procedures and protocols for showing interest and intervention at various levels, which only reach the levels of removing children in a small number of cases, despite what many think in terms of believing SW are just looking to remove children all the time (especially WC ones).

I am glad it is SS making these judgements and not other parents, because other parents often seem to want to hang lots out to dry…..only perfection in parenting (and their definition of it…which fits with what they do) is acceptable.

Of course it’s right that there is a system to safeguard children. And there are children who need keeping an eye on, families who need support and education and those who need to have their children taken away. The system does need to be robust and it needs to be objective and based on risk of genuine harm.

I agree that MC parents have more scope to slip under the radar and not draw attention to some of the behaviours which might be flags for concern. I also agree that some groups in society have such a level of distrust of authority and inability or unwillingness to engage with them, that instantly, this behaviour can make them look suspicious, when sometimes there is nothing there at all.

Most of the time, concerns raised about all classes lead to a procedural low level check and that’s the end of it….fortunately. Sometimes a low level support is put in place - a training course is recommended, or some monitoring or other agencies involved for a period. And that’s then the end of it. It is only a small number of cases that go significantly further from any class. But today, there is a more joined up system. There will always be cases where children do t get the support they need and cases slip through the net and parents evade detection….but think these are fewer. Many of the cases people mention on here refer to their own childhoods many years ago, when the systems were not in place and many children were failed. It is terrible with Ling term outcomes. But I honestly do believe, that whilst the system will never be perfect by any means, it is better now than it has been.

Agree with everything you say here Also this thread is one of the nastiest I've ever read on here

@Bryonyshcmyony
Why?
I think it’s helpful. It can be difficult coming to terms with neglect and abuse if you come from a socially privileged background. Have you not seen the stately homes threads?

[quote RickOShay]@Bryonyshcmyony
Why?
I think it’s helpful. It can be difficult coming to terms with neglect and abuse if you come from a socially privileged background. Have you not seen the stately homes threads?[/quote]
I was talking mainly about the McCann comments and the fucking awful judgemental bollocks on here tbh.

Right ok, but that’s a side issue though. I think the main point on this thread is a valid one.
Appearances are deceptive.

I agree @RickOShay and we've had some interesting comments from teachers and safeguarding professionals.
But the MM references are out of order.

What's interesting is the number of posters claiming they are "middle class" and don't recognise what the OP is talking about or they don't know anyone who behaves like that. (Drink, drinks, nor being able to fully care for their children because of the recovery needed.) It's interesting that these posters don't say that this type of behaviour doesn't happen or is rare across the board (or classes in this case).

So what's the assumption there? That it's not something that "middle class" do and therefore there's more social service involvement in "working class" families because that's were this behaviour occurs?

Also, the claim that the other two children in Portugal would have been taken away if they had been a working class family. No they wouldn't have. That claim just suggests that whoever said it has simply no idea how much neglect or abuse occurs before a child is removed. They certainly wouldn't have gone to jail

I also wouldn't think that the parents of the abducted child in Portugal did get away with it (presuming this means in media and social media) - they were (and still are) demonised from the get go, mostly in a "if they were working class..." way.

Ultimately what it comes to, as was pointed out very early on in this thread, neglect and abuse is less noticed in "middle class" households, because its more hidden- there's supports and back up avaliable. Add to that the unconscious bias that it doesn't happen in "middle class" families and you've abused children being not noticed or believed.

Social service don't get involved because mum and dad are hungover. No matter what class. Society judges it differently though - no doubt.

Nor does social services get involved because a child eats a takeaway or frozen food handed to then by a hungover mum, rather than organic cooked from scratch by a mum who's already been out for a 5k run, done the shopping in Waitrose and had her hair washed in Evian and a shampoo bar by the local artisan hairdresser while dad went for a bike ride with the children after he had got up an made a healthy cereal free breakfast while singing and dancing with his offspring.*

*OK, so I might have got a bit sarcastic here.

It is actually a running joke in our household. If you are middle class, you really can get away with a lot more.

My daughter had sepsis and a chest infection after contracting chicken pox, and we were blue lighted to hospital. Her chicken pox' were infected and she was really poorly. When we turned up to hospital, we were told that social services would be involved immediately to determine if this was neglect, however, the second I mentioned she was at the local private school, they said "well, we wont call social services then". The doctor had decided that because our children went to private school that this couldn't have been neglect.

@rhowton

It is actually a running joke in our household. If you are middle class, you really can get away with a lot more.

My daughter had sepsis and a chest infection after contracting chicken pox, and we were blue lighted to hospital. Her chicken pox' were infected and she was really poorly. When we turned up to hospital, we were told that social services would be involved immediately to determine if this was neglect, however, the second I mentioned she was at the local private school, they said "well, we wont call social services then". The doctor had decided that because our children went to private school that this couldn't have been neglect.

That's really appalling. I'd want to report that tbh. Your DD was okay, but what about other kids who aren't?

I hope there was more to that decisions that you weren't privy to.

Some of these things are just lifestyle choices of people with disposable income though there is nothing sinister about them, they are not covering up anything. For example, eating out at decent places is not covering up anything, a disposal income that is good enough to enjoy this stuff is all that is happening.

Equally, people don't stop hosting social events, especially when the children are not babies, it can be dominated by one person who takes it too far but then they are probably viewed in that way. There are usually last day of term park picnics that include drinks but I would say that the majority at these things are quite aware of where there young children are and don't drink at all but yes, you get the odd one or two who ime are remarked upon.

@rhowton

It is actually a running joke in our household. If you are middle class, you really can get away with a lot more.

My daughter had sepsis and a chest infection after contracting chicken pox, and we were blue lighted to hospital. Her chicken pox' were infected and she was really poorly. When we turned up to hospital, we were told that social services would be involved immediately to determine if this was neglect, however, the second I mentioned she was at the local private school, they said "well, we wont call social services then". The doctor had decided that because our children went to private school that this couldn't have been neglect.

Why would SS have been involved?!

NTFT but I do think theres a perceived and likely justified difference between a glass of wine and a can of cider. Wine is considered (rightly or wrongly) as something to be savoured, enjoyed. People learn about the provenance, what to pair it with etc etc. That puts it more into a category of food, that happens to contain alcohol, rather than something drunk solely for the physical effects. That’s not to say that everyone drinking it is doing it for the taste, just that it could be why it’s more ‘socially acceptable’. I think a MC mum would be judged as harshly as a WC one if she cracked open the Diamond White every night.

As for drug taking - well, sadly, socioeconomics tends to have a significant effect on whether drug taking goes from being recreational to problematic. Cocaine, for example, is much more expensive than crack - and it’s much less addictive. Holding down a professional job likely requires some level of self-restriction, too.

I don’t think anyone would deny that unfair judgements are made against people who lie outside society’s ‘ideals’, and class perception definitely plays a part in that.

But I also think the OP is being harsh when she says these people don’t deserve to have children. If they have addiction issues, they should be helped to overcome them, just the same as anyone.

My parents took us to lots of parties where the wine was flowing and the conversation was about politics as that's how they all knew each other from being members of the same liberal political party. We just played with the other children and got on with it, I would imagine some had overindulged but that was life, I dont think a mild hangover on occasion makes someone neglectful.

My childhood was 80s/90s and I don't recall anyone's being much different to that. Our parents definitely had a life that we had to fit in to not the other way around.

What’s with all the hatred of kids wearing old clothes? Why wouldn’t you reuse and recycle clothes, rather than buy new? It’s not neglectful, it’s doing a little bit to save the planet.

For some years I worked in a bar in a quite middle class area. The bar had a play area with soft balls and a climbing frame. We regularly had middle class parents coming in mid-day and getting quite drunk to the point where they could not possible look after their kids. In one case a child received a nasty cut and the parent (mother), was so drunk she just said, you can take him to casualty, I'm pissed!. Middle class parents are more articulate and know how to deflect criticism and avoid social services interest. However, there are a small minority who are quite abusive, and are more capable of getting away with it for longer periods than their working class counterparts.

@thatonehasalittlecar

What’s with all the hatred of kids wearing old clothes? Why wouldn’t you reuse and recycle clothes, rather than buy new? It’s not neglectful, it’s doing a little bit to save the planet.

I know. I didn't realise SS got involved if kids weren't wearing brand new immaculate clothes from this seasons Next catalogue

@Brainwave89

For some years I worked in a bar in a quite middle class area. The bar had a play area with soft balls and a climbing frame. We regularly had middle class parents coming in mid-day and getting quite drunk to the point where they could not possible look after their kids. In one case a child received a nasty cut and the parent (mother), was so drunk she just said, you can take him to casualty, I'm pissed!. Middle class parents are more articulate and know how to deflect criticism and avoid social services interest. However, there are a small minority who are quite abusive, and are more capable of getting away with it for longer periods than their working class counterparts.

I think we might have different ideas about what constitutes middle class

Also it was a bar, what did you think people were going to do apart from drink alcohol in it?!

@thatonehasalittlecar

What’s with all the hatred of kids wearing old clothes? Why wouldn’t you reuse and recycle clothes, rather than buy new? It’s not neglectful, it’s doing a little bit to save the planet.

I don't think anyone hates kids wearing old clothes.

People are pointing out that when a working class parent dresses their children in old, holey clothes, it's seen as a marker for potential neglect. Like they can't clothe their children properly. When middle class parents dress their children in old clothes it's seen as trendy, thrifty, belying a certain kind of boho lifestyle.

A middle class parent has an innate sense of confidence that they can send their child to nursery in holey leggings and a tomato-stained top and it'll be seen as 'well it's only nursery, makes sense when their clothes will get wrecked there anyway!'. A working class parent tends to be more cautious in case it's perceived differently.

I doubt old clothes are in any way a trigger. Filthy smelly clothes with holes in maybe.

I know. I didn't realise SS got involved if kids weren't wearing brand new immaculate clothes from this seasons Next catalogue

Clearly that alone wouldn't spark an interest. But let's says child with a single mum on benefits turns up at school in ill fitting, stained uniform, the teacher may well notice. They won't refer to ss but they might make a mental note. Then child is late to school a few times, then there lunch box looks a little sparse...then it builds into a bigger picture. I

If Hugo comes into class in too short trousers talking about his latest ski trip, teacher may not see this as a red flag

@Monday26July

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining it.

That’s a real shame, because of course second hand clothing is a win-win, and I’m pretty sure as long as it is clean, people wouldn’t be suspected of neglect.