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.

Yes I agree. There are many things that are social norm now that would have been called fascist when first floated. The idea that it is illegal to not wear a seat belt in your own car for example. The smoking ban. When my parents were born it would have been outrageous to think a man could be charged as a criminal for having sex with his wife if she didn't feel like it. Or that a parent could not discipline their children in any way they chose. Yet all of these examples involve state intervention and erosion of individual rights to some extent. Common good v individual.

I think its important to be open minded that further interventions could be acceptable, we could be better, we evolve all the time.

Because the alternative of placing a child into the care system is traumatic and causes issues of their own, even when a child reaches the current limit in which they would remove a child.

Looked after children/care leavers have dire outcomes. Sometimes staying with the parents, even if it may not be ideal is still likely to cause a better outcome than the care system.

Is the toddler obese? I’m always surprised when these kids are inactive in front of screens all day and only eat UPF’s and they’re still thin!! My friends son ate a diet of McDonald’s and never left his flat and is stick thin.

But the alternative to poor parenting isn't placing children in care, is it. We could teach basic childcare in schools, give parenting classes to parents who don't do the minimum, and give more support to parents who are struggling.

The care system is bad, it needs an overhaul. There doesn't seem to be any will to do that. Its all so sad.

Because none of you who are advocating for things like minimum outside time have come up with anything remotely resembling a workable system.

This exactly - care should always be a last resort - even removing kids from utterly vile parents has a massive traumatic impact on a child, added to a system not really fit for purpose, haemorrhaging skilled workers, inadequately funded with poor outcomes for those who leave it - nah - not taking your kid to feed the ducks is not a reason to put them in care.

It costs money and this government isn't interested.

Not to mention the fact that things such as making sure every child goes out at least 3 times a week for half an hour would be impossible to police.

If you home educate you can still get support from the school nurse service.

I feel very very sorry for the little boy sat at home. Poor little thing.

Agree with most pps that there's no way of addressing these things that don't verge towards oppressive BUT

I think that all children should have to be educated about ethics and society, and politics and democracy - so that they have an understanding of what makes a decent society, what is freedom and where are its limits, why we have taxation and benefits, our responsibilities to our fellow citizens, 'prosocial' behaviour, what is a 'good life' etc are discussed and debated, plus issues like consent - and I definitely think that parents including home edders should not be able to remove their children from that. I'd go further and say that home educated children should receive that aspect of education from adults other than their parents.

Edited to add - maybe parenting should also be a module. What does a child need and deserve? kind of thing. Part of my reasoning for the whole idea is that they will themselves be less likely to be the kind of parents that their own parents were.

It eventually is, if you're talking about parents being obliged to do certain things in a system with any teeth. Which obviously the ideas proposed about screen time and the like aren't, but hypothetically.

That's the case now for things like feeding, seeking medical care if ill etc, some parents just can't or don't want to do those things. And any rise in requirements would increase the numbers affected. That is inevitable.

The first scenario is definitely worse than the second because that is neglecting a child's basic need to socialise.
However I used to be a social worker and I raised an issue about a parent, well meaning but child had no toys at all, out of parent choice, the child didn't know how to play, her whole place was empty, and the child clung to her mother like a doll & vice versa. Now I thought it might not be ok, but manager stated that there were cultural differences with families all over the world (pointed out we weren't anywhere else and this child was white british but never mind), and they all survive, basically I was told that it was a difference, but not neglectful. I still don't know if that was right, and it is often a finely balanced decisions made as to whether a child will grow up in the sort of environment OP talks about without being damaged to some degree.
I am sure that another social work manager would have decided that it wasn't ok, depends on who you get

I don't think you read the thread. We did call out a few people on fascism on here and those were people advocating eugenics.
As to the basic standards, they already exist. A child has the right to shelter, food, affection, education etc. The issues here appears to be that the OP made an assumption that social services would not step in to provide support and guidance but she also repeatedly evades the question of whether she made an actual report to social services regarding the first child (and I don't agree that the second example constitutes neglect). So my guess would be she didn't. Which makes her complicit.
From my experience SS take keen interest in cases like that. I have to make these kinds of reports in my professional capacity and SS get involved for lesser reasons. Sometimes they will make an assessment and decide that there are no risks and harm to the child, sometimes they would offer a support worker and/or parenting classes. There are many things they can do. And I think it is absolutely right for them not to remove the child from a parent at a drop of a hat. Yet some people on here seem to think it is appropriate and yes, these views are somewhat extreme.

More than one person has mentioned computing as being important to learn alongside English and maths as a minimum.

Who decides what is important? Why computing (what is meant by computing? Interfaces are written to be pretty self explanatory) and not geography? We need to be able find our way about in the world, or how about the names and uses of trees and plants? (We are losing our connection with nature). What about the basics of nutrition? And how adequate b12 is obtained. The importance of daylight and magnesium for vitamin D.
Why not how to buy things in a supermarket? Lots of parents now shop online so maybe there are children growing up who haven't been in a supermarket. There's so much learning in that though, speaking to staff, handling money and so on. Maybe it's important that children are equipped with the ability to ask other adults for help by seeing their parents modelling it out and about - in shops, railway stations, car mechanics, trades people etc so that they can navigate the world. Sometimes that comes along with handling frustration and tricky conversations. All important 'soft skills' for adulthood.

I'd put learning to use a screen interface if that is what is meant by computing bottom of the list. People learn to drive a car having never been in one. That's a much more complicated skill than swiping right on a phone.

We do have laws to protect children.

SS don't get involved with cases like this, not always definitely, I can say that with certainty as an ex social worker. They push a lot off & do a lot of emergency child protection work. They don't have time for neglect, if a child is being fed & watered they often see it as none of their business. I don't agree by the way, just my experience working in that system

This sounds like a completely different picture but I grew up with friends without a single toy. I couldn't believe how they managed. However they had friends round daily and I was never bored at their house. When we got bored, we asked to learn how to cook.

There was a cultural combination of leaving the kids to make their own fun and involving them in the adult world when they asked that really seemed to work well.

Again, I think it's about a whole picture and not just individual red flags and what you've mentioned sounds like more than just a red flag

I guess I've been really lucky so far in my interactions with social workers. At a minimum they would make an assessment. I have never been fobbed off when I brought concerns over. Perhaps it helps that I have a chat with our safeguarding department and they look at the guidelines and are able to confirm whether something falls under the definition of neglect and then put their own weight behind the referral.
I also wrote to GPs a couple of times where I wasn't sure of the risks and wanted them to keep an eye on the child/adult in question. Of course, this is easily done as a professional, not so much as a bystander.

Tried to quote a post and couldn’t get it to work- to those suggesting compulsory nursery for babies/1 year olds, even part time, why? Why should good parents who have chosen not to use childcare for babies/young toddlers be forced to use it? Then it comes back to, well, if the parenting isn’t good enough they go to compulsory nursery. How do you judge that?

Children 70 odd years ago didn’t have many toys at all. A baby would have a few rattles perhaps, a couple of books a teddy and that was it. Mainly because the man made fibres and plastic didn’t exist to make safe chewable light toys. And affordability. Babies were heavily entertained by other people or watched mum going about her business. It doesn’t seem to have caused any issues on a generation level. In fact when you think about it lots of toys is quite a recent thing. The most important thing for children is to be interacted with and spoken to. I wonder how much good all the big flashy toys and distracting things in the pram do.

@Naptrappedmummy my daughter was so much happier pulling out the tupperware cupboard than she ever was with her toys.

Exactly.

Mine started nursery at 3 months so I'm obviously not against nurseries, far from it but it has to be parental choice even if that means some children missing out who would otherwise benefit. That's why the 15 hours exists for 2 year olds but it is still optional.

Me too.

OP, what does your SIL say when you call her out on being a crap mother and a lazy, neglectful bitch?

Agree that the first example is neglect. I also have a 2.5 year old, we are always out of the house and she goes to nursery 4 days a week. I felt so sad for the little boy reading that, that he'd never fed the ducks or been in a park 😞

I do remember thinking hen my first DS was born that it was a bit batshit they just let us walk out of the hospital with a real actual baby and bugger all idea what we were doing! We’d had a 5 min ‘how to bath a baby’ lesson, breastfeeding advice as part of antenatal classes and they checked we had a car seat and that was it! Luckily we were both parented to a ‘good enough’ standard and had access to books and the internet and 17 years on we are muddling through ok.
One of the great tragedies of this government has been the demise of services for 0-5 when there is so much research that says the ingrained inequalities for deprived children at school starting age will never be undone. Even where services are available it requires parental willingness to access them.
I don’t know what you do with a parent so pathologically lazy that they won’t take their child to free nursery hours or that would choose to attend a free family event without their child. That made me so sad for the poor kid.