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.

The thing is, every parenting choice can be made to sound unreasonable. Especially when it comes to your second example. Personally, I feel that a child growing up in a Christian home is also indoctrinated into mad beliefs. But, generally speaking, we don't think that adults who don't believe in evolution or think that "Jesus made science" are unable to function in a modern society.
As far as your first example, I think if the child was actually reported to the social services, some parenting guidance is very likely to be offered. But it sounds as though there are many people in this child's life who are aware of the predicament and none are prepared to do anything about it.

Oh yes, like in totalitarian states.

Great idea, taking children from their loving parents.

Another fascist suggestion.

You know there are animal care courses? They set a basic minimum standard of care, without being fascistic. Lots of people think they don't need those either.

Those examples are a bit extreme and damaging to the kids. You don't want the alternative where the state chooses who can have children though. I'm sure I read a feminist dystopian novel about that, where women were obliged to have coils fitted that only the state could remove. Would you want Suella Braverman setting the rules on who can have kids? I'm pretty sure it would change the ethnic and class make up of the country fairly sharpish.

Diversity is one of humanity's strengths - some species don't have much difference between individuals, eg all bee drones do the same thing, you don't get ones that suddenly decide to do something else! With humans, our differences give us an advantage in problem solving.

The flip side is that you sometimes get nut jobs like your SIL. The cousin I feel a bit less strongly about. Part of the problem is the change in society that makes it possible to live an isolated life, once upon a time you would have had to come out and walk around to go to the shops or work etc.

Yes, but they are not compulsory. I am allowed to own a dog, a cat and a snake without taking them. There are parenting courses out there for those who need and/or want them.

But where would you draw the line with the standard? I've yet to meet a perfect parent. We already have SS for those who cross the lines. Yes it should be better funded so we can protect DC properly but what is your standard? Remove a 4 year old because Mum chose to wean them off breastmilk rather than letting them naturally wean? Leaving a twin to cry whilst dealing with the other? Child sneaks a piece of chocolate from the locked adult food cupboard (because surely that's where good parents keep unhealthy treats) should they be forcibly removed? Parent becomes overweight, are they a bad example? DC doesn't score full marks in a spelling test, should their parent have taught them better?

And what sort of messege does this send the DC, everything must always be perfect, anything less is not good enough. Is that a good messege to teach DC?

Are they state delivered and compulsory?

Do you understand the legal and ethical differences between an animal and a human?

The second example reminded me of Tara Westover’s book, Educated. Very interesting and at times shocking account of her life growing up in the US, with very religious eccentric parents and isolated from normal society. She educated herself, got out, and ended up at Cambridge university. Truly inspirational.

The issue is that most neglect is not active cruelty, it's because the parents are inadequate. They literally don't know better.

The first child you mention is little more than a hamster to his mother, and the family should get involved. He's their kin

@herewegoroundthebastardbush When I was on maternity leave I did! I did put in my OP the only times he went to soft play is when I’ve physically taken him. I’ve also taken him to McDonald’s, toddler groups and places when I was going etc.

Obviously maternity leave ending put a stop to that and his life resumed to staying indoors. But we still do what we can when we can.

When I couldn’t drive for a few weeks a while back when on mat leave, I asked her to meet me at an afternoon free baby/toddler session. I was getting the bus and even said I’d get long bus from mine to hers and then we can get the bus together to the group as I thought maybe she just was nervous on her own or something. But nope, she said ‘getting buses is a faff with prams,
I can’t be arsed with that. When you get your car back we’ll do it for then’.

Just laziness.

But that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that I’m shocked this can actually happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to force a change.

Who gets to decide what the right way to parent is? Right now, you are just talking about people you know but the issue is, it's a slippery slope and before you know it, it's about your perfectly fine parenting that maybe not everyone would decide to do.

There's also weighing up the pros and cons of children who aren't abused but maybe are also not in ideal situations. Statistically, their likely future outcomes may be poor but then take a look at the statistics for looked after children and that looks very bleak too.

I know of a large family where the dc are homeschooled and the mother has seemingly made up her own religion and teaches the dc her beliefs - she argues that nobody can provide proof of any other religion so why is she wrong to teach hers

I will add though as posted too soon her dc are lovely (and very clever as her home schooling is timetabled and they take gcses) but it’s just a little strange and cult like

The thing is as shit as that parenting is the kids that are beaten, sexually abused, starved etc are still handed back to parents or visitation rights are insisted on. If these children can’t be protected those that have also terrible upbringings won’t even be looked at at the level you describe.

Is what she is teaching objectively damaging?

I was told at school if I did certain things I would burn in hell. Is that better?

I wonder if the nursery hasn't flagged the no show in example one.
I realise SS are stretched but "hidden " children should be on their radar.

Firstly bless his little heart. Secondly things are likely to get flagged up when he reaches school he is likely to act very differently from peers. IN AN IDEAL world this will hopefully get flagged up and some exploring maybe done and the mother in question SHOULD have to engage in some courses. However the educational and safeguarding and sen sectors are all swamped so hopefully by that time things improve and little man gets thrown a lifeline

The system relies upon most people wanting the best for their children. I agree that example 2 doesn't sound ideal and it's not the upbringing I would want for my children, but provided that those kids are clothed and have adequate nutrition, they may turn out absolutely fine. Their parents, although batshit crazy, probably love them and are doing the best for them according to their (albeit eccentric and many would say misguided) lights. Also, they are receiving socialisation of a sort. Perhaps there is a case for stronger regulation of home education, but I don't necessarily think that a free society should be targeting families like this.

Example 1 is trickier because there you have parents who really aren't interested in putting their child first. And from everything from school applications to access to free clubs and activities, society relies on parents being "sharp-elbowed" on behalf of their children (or at least willing to put themselves out a bit for them). Though personally I think the case you've described is so extreme that it should fall within the remit of social services involvement, and would if services were properly funded.

The other side of this, of course, is that some professionals can be extraordinarily narrow-minded when it comes to children and how they are brought up. At my youngest's most recent developmental review, the health visitor seemed obsessed with playgroups and "family meals", and seemed very perturbed that we weren't attending a playgroup every day and I wasn't cooking fish pie, lasagne, pasta bakes and fruit crumbles every night, despite my DC1 hating all of these things 😂. She even offered to send me links for recipes.

OP you're talking about facism, and yes I think you sound very unreasonable, judgmental and controlling.

I'd rather children live with the second group of people you mentioned than in a home where they are looking at screens instead of books.

I think people often pick at the way others do things to avoid something in themselves. Let people be different, it is not for you to act as some kind of cultural arbiter. V. Orwellian and a bit scary that people think the way you do.

No it’s not damaging it’s just very alternative but when we were talking she said how is it different to what is taught about other religions - that it’s all stories and where’s the proof and I kind of got her point. Her dc are taking about it a lot and then my dc were asking me so many questions I felt like
they were almost being recruited !!! None of it is harmful or worrying or scary I’ve just never heard of anyone doing this - she is very much ‘this is how / who created earth and this is why’ things they have to do and what they need to know about possessing this knowledge etc

What has them being vegan got to do with it? I knew that was going to be mentioned somewhere when I clicked on this thread.

my sil is the same as example one. claims her toddler and baby have autism because they’re restless and misbehaved but they haven’t seen the outside of their tiny one bed flat for days if not weeks at a time while their mam is off drinking

One of the reasons we don't police people's parenting to this level is that we can't. You're talking about a level of supervision that would require a colossal workforce to implement, as well as structures to enforce the system and to cope with challenges to it.

It's not just a matter of money. If it were, we might actually have some chance of achieving it. It's logistics. Something like this would need vast numbers of people to run it. People who are of working age, have enough idea what they're doing that they can actually be trusted with the welfare of family units, who want to do it, don't have nefarious intentions and are in sufficient health that they can actually perform the job reliably. That's a smaller pool than you might think. And it's not the sort of thing that can be done in a half arsed manner, otherwise you're going to cause more problems than you solve and the population won't have it.

I understand where you're coming from.
It's a slippery slope though when it comes to deciding what's acceptable and what's not.
For instance it blows my mind that other parents have access to the same information I do about such things as extended rear facing car seats, baby led weaning and barefoot shoes - all things I researched and try hard to do well, based on evidence about safety/psychology/whatever else the decision is about. Yet they don't choose there options, they choose something else (which IMO is not as good). These are minor things because I understand that doing the alternatives is almost always not unsafe, it's perhaps just less safe or not as good for child health in the long run. But still I want to do the absolute best for my children. Yet other parents don't think it's important or think it's unnecessary. I'm talking about friends and family who I know full well can afford to make the more expensive choices but don't. Clearly some of those things I've used as examples some don't have access to because of costs. But when it's a choice, like I said it blows my mind.
The things you've described are extremes but I mean to point out that we all have different standards of what is an acceptable parenting choice!

OP wrote;
''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.''

and for that she's being called a fascist.