To think it’s crazy you can parent whatever way you want?!

[ItsGivingJudgey]

This OP will sound judgey has hell hence my username. I’ve NC but long time user.

I know it’s a free country (in the UK at least). I also really support human rights, however I still find it mad that you can have a child and raise them whatever way you want no matter how batshit so long as it doesn’t meet the very high legal requirements for removal.

Examples:

ONE:

My SIL does F all with her child and he’s now 2.5 years old. He literally does not leave the house other than for absolute essentials such as medical appointments. He doesn’t go to nursery despite it being free (she doesn’t work). He’s never been swimming, to feed the ducks, to the beach or the local park. He’s never met other children outside of his cousins. He’s only ever been to soft play twice when I have physically picked them up to take them with me and my dc.
He only ever leaves the house when my in-laws take him food shopping with them just to get him out. He can literally go 1-2 weeks without being outside his front door.
SIL on the other hand goes on holidays, days out with her boyfriend, cocktails with friends etc. She just has the in-laws babysit when she does. Her reasoning? ‘It’s a faff’ ‘the weather is bad’ or she ‘can’t be arsed today’. She was very lazy before becoming a parent but her laziness now has extended to her child who literally lives his entire life within the confines of the house. It’s nothing to do with mental health on her part, it’s pure laziness. She’ll only take him out if a member of the family with a car physically goes and picks them up and drops them back off home. The nursery is less than a 5 minute walk from her house. She was badgered by the health visitor to enroll him so she did it, took him for a week and then never bothered again as it was ‘too much faffing about for just a few hours’.

He lives off microwave meals and tinned food. Wakes up and spends the entire day in front of the tv or with his tablet. When my in-laws went away last year he didn’t leave the house for 3 weeks!!

It doesn’t meet the legal requirements or thresholds for social services. He is fed and clothed and has lots of toys. But it’s crazy that he is able to spend his entire life within the confines of a house and that’s that.

TWO:

My cousin. Very well educated, affluent and has always been a bit eccentric as is her DH. However over the years they have joined a kind of weird religion/cult like group and are massive conspiracy theorists. They homeschool their kids (fine), but have indoctrinated them with mad beliefs. The kids including the baby are vegan. Their unvaccinated. They can only bath in this specially filtered water. The kids are feral and not allowed to watch tv, listen to any type of mainstream music only this specifically selected whale like music. They avoid any type of radiation and limit sources of power so in the evenings the house is lit by candlelight and an open fire. The kids wear this robe like clothing that seems impractical. The kids no nothing outside of their parents beliefs. They have no awareness of the outside world. They only socialise with the other people in this conspiracy group that also homeschool.

My cousin and her husband are well meaning and obviously it’s their right to believe what they wish. But their kids won’t know how to use the internet, any real world references, learn about other religions or cultures. Surely this will do long term harm in some way?

The children couldn’t tell you what spaghetti bolognaise is or what a smartphone/tablet is or that there was ever a world war or even how what a kettle
is for. But they can tell you about crystal healing powers. What if when they get to 18 they want to live a ‘mainstream’ life and join society? How will they manage? Get a job? Make friends with peers?

It’s not that I believe there’s only one right way to parent or anything because I don’t. However I find it mad that you can have a baby and so long as you meet very basic standards, you can literally do as you want with actual human beings.

Please tell me if I’m being unreasonable to think it’s not right and if I am being unreasonable why so? I feel so sorry for these children.

Where is the dad in example 1 and in example 2 the kids will wonder about the world as part of teen rebelion.

The first scenario is more harmful.

I agree, it's ridiculous you need a licence to drive a car (or even to operate a television) but literally anyone is allowed to become a parent. I'd like to see a system where parents and those who are expecting or trying to concieve have to attend classes and reach a certain standard, otherwise the kids are taken away/terminated and the parents sterilised.

You can't make people love their children. They will claim they do, but their actions will show otherwise. Love is an action. So too is neglectful parenting.

There are two main issues here.

One is that it's difficult to draw the line as to what's acceptable and what isn't so how do you draw up any sort of policy to set standards for raising children that respects all sorts of cultural and personal beliefs? We are, in theory, supposed to be a society based on freedom. That level of state intervention into the home would cause an uproar.

The other is; how do you police that? Once you start setting standards about raising children and allow the state to intervene beyond clear safeguarding issues, how much resource would be required to manage that? It wouldn't feasible. With the state of public services as they are, budgets are cut to the bone to the point social care can only deal with critical issues where they have a statutory duty to intervene. Even then, they end up redefining what critical means so that it's defined by what they can afford.

Some absolutely insane responses already on this thread.

Who is allowed to set the baseline for "good" parenting then?

Yanbu for thinking that these parents are doing a shit job. It is judgemental, but if what you say is true, I think most people would agree that the situations you describe are far from optimal.

What's the solution though? The threshold for taking kids away from their parents is quite rightly very high...most kids are better off with their parents overall, and we probably wouldn't have the infrastructure to look after them effectively in greater numbers in any case.

So what would you propose we do? Should the government set out specific requirements for how parents are supposed to raise their kids? Who would set those requirements exactly? And what would you propose we should do about parents who choose not to comply?

It is a sad fact of life that some kids are saddled with unbelievably shit parents, but any attempt to "fix" that is highly problematic. As a society, we have decided to intervene in cases where there is clearly abuse or neglect - either by taking the child away in extreme circumstances or by offering support to parents where lower level concerns are identified. Beyond that, we leave it up to the parents, and I think that's realistically the only thing that we can do.

Better funding for social services would be helpful, in order to reduce case loads and facilitate timely interventions. Beyond that, I think the balance is probably about right at the moment.

If you have serious concerns about the wellbeing of individual children, you should absolutely report these concerns to the relevant authorities.

Can you see why we don't allow this to happen? Imagine if you were forced to abort a baby because Dotjones didn't like your thinking!

@ILikeMyMenLikeMyCoffeeWhiteAndWeak

The dad in example 1 is a long story. He was basically just as lazy as her. Before dc they’d spend their days sleeping in till late afternoon and then gaming through the night. They’d both live off takeaways and not do anything which was fine when it was just them and not harming anyone.

After they broke up when baby was born he moved back in with his mum and continued to game in his bedroom and contact tailed off. His disabled mum (wheelchair user) tried to see dc but SIL ‘couldn’t be bothered’ to go over there or meet her on days out. So again, unless the grandmother physically comes and picks him up she doesn’t see him and as grandmother doesn’t drive, it doesn’t happen. She send money and gifts instead I think.

But I agree that SIL is much more damaging than cousins kids. At least cousins kids go outside and have friends albeit within this ‘group’.

I'm also wondering about the child's dad in the first senario. Also I think that all homeschooled children should have some kind of involvement with a professional similar to a health visitor who can offer advice, help with SEN referrals, do the reception/year 6 height/weight checks etc.

…and those children grow up to have poor mental and often also poor physical health (they go together!) and unable to function well individually or as part of society.

If they are ‘lucky’ they manage to ‘fake it’ and muddle along ok enough but with emotional developmental damage still evident just under the surface, struggle with relationships etc.

If they are unlucky they struggle to function at all and get trapped in a cycle of dysfunctional relationships and chaotic life with further abuse and addiction, having a mental breakdown or drinking/drugging themselves into oblivion and all the detestation that causes.

It’s not like we don’t know what children need to develop well, and what damages children’s healthy development. It’s just no one does anything about it - we just watch it happen, shake our heads sadly and then the individual and services have to try and pick up the pieces once they reach adulthood.

however I still find it mad that you can have a child and raise them whatever way you want no matter how batshit so long as it doesn’t meet the very high legal requirements for removal

Well how would you decide that your standards for "parenting" are the right ones?

Take breast versus bottle
Nursery versus childminder versus SAHM
Screen time
Allowing your child to eat at McDonalds
Supervising homework to the nth degree versus letting the child face the consequences of not doing it.

I've news for you. Parents are not perfect, not even MNers, and they don't "parent" perfectly. Most bring their kids up as best they can. Their kids turn out reasonably well despite their "parenting". Not because of it. Parent is a thing you are, not what you do.

There are abusive parents and that's where social services step in.

But not because they'd do it another way.

I asked for parenting classes at school because I was convinced I didn't have the faintest idea how to do it; I was told in a private interview with the deputy Head 'that sort of thing was only for very troubled families'.

Not anything hugely intrusive or like social services, but health visitors monitor pre school children and the school will monitor children at school. So something similar should be in place for homeschooled children.

I don't know. The first example seems cruel and the second example eccentric but all children live in their parents idea of the world, including yours. There are many ways to live your life and your way isn't necessarily the correct way. I for one am not vaccinating my child for my own reasons, some people will judge me, others believe I'm doing the right thing and do the same for their children. From your post I assume you would judge me for that but at the end of the day I adhere to most other societal norms and there are nuances in each and every person's line of thought which means they live their lives how they want to. On your second example you mention the kids not being allowed to watch television or no screen time as a negative but to me that's completely ridiculous. The "norm" now could be considered kids under 5 with their own tablets spending most of their free time playing quick reward games which I believe, does do some damage to development and I think there are studies to back this up. "Normal" isn't always correct, and your normal won't be somebody else's normal. Just because alot of society fit into a similar lifestyle doesn't mean it's the only way things can be done without equating to child abuse.

I'm lazy, always have been. I hate that about myself and find it really difficult to fully change. However, I have two young children and another on the way. Once a week we have an 'inside day', it's mainly so I can catch up on housework etc. but we do stuff, obstacle courses, playdough, arts and crafts etc etc etc. the other days are filled with nursery and clubs. I don't get how someone can't constantly put their kids first. It baffles me.

First example is a lot worse imo. Although the restrictive diet could lead to health issues.

At the end of the day people can do what they want to an extent which is a blessing and a curse at the same time but how would you police what is acceptable parenting? Could easily end up living in a dictatorship if we started trying to

To add, we should be thankful we live in a free country with at least some level of choice because not everybody does. You wouldn't be too happy if there were restrictions on your parenting but it didn't suit your idea of parenting. If there is no abuse or neglect then let parents do as they see fit and step back from judging because it gets you nowhere other than basking in negativity.

I take mine out a lot because I am lazy. It’s a lot more work being inside with them!

I think others have covered it. I would be very uncomfortable with anything that removes children because an opinion doesn’t align with the person making that decision.

So eugenics, then? And I suppose in your utopia of pedigree bred humans, you would just so happen to meet the required standards, hm?

The first example is a type of neglect. Not bad enough to be recognised by SS, but neglect none the less. She is not fulfilling her child’s physical (movement) needs (do they have a garden he can run around in/kick a ball?), intellectual needs or social needs (he’s not seeing other adults or children enough). In an ideal world someone should be intervening here, but in reality SS don’t have capacity to address cases like this, as you say as long as the child is clothed and fed they don’t consider it.

The second example may seem batshit but it just means the children will grow up to be a bit different - and we need different types of people in society! Agree with pp that they will likely branch out as teens or young adults.

Isn’t that (sort of) what happened in Canada, though? My memory is vague but I think First Nations children were removed from their parents. It didn’t go well and my understanding is that Canada is still recovering from that now so to speak.

The alternative is a fascist state, involving itself in people's private lives, so YABU.

I'd invest more in education, social services, police, youth offending and youth work. But absolutely no way do I want someone with illiberal views like you @ItsGivingJudgey deciding how I raise my children.

Wow, both are a bit extreme

The first is worst. It's severe negligence

Isn’t that (sort of) what happened in Canada, though?

^^

Happened in the UK too

People who think like this are a danger to society.

This is fascism. This is not in line with British values.