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.

It's hard to say, isn't it.

So many parents these days pretend an elf is alive in their house in December.

When you analyse it - is she lying more than many other parents? Or is your issue that it is a non-standard lie?

Ultimately parents who seek to control their children are unhealthy. If you think it really is cult-like, rather than just an alternative story, then you should consider reporting.

What will your SIL do when her DC has to go to school, home school him or will that be too much work. Poor kid will have no social skills if he doesn't have any friends.

Neither SIL nor cousin deserve to be parents

Both those examples are awful. It is scary the home lives some kids have.

I'm no expert, but wouldn't the lack of stimulation/social interaction the first child is receiving constitute emotional neglect? And the poor diet, lack of physical play and exposure to the outdoors could have significant impact on physical and mental well being. I wouldn't be surprised if this little boy was vitamin D deficient if he never goes outside and has a limited diet, unless he's receiving supplements, which given the description of his home life seems unlikely. That could have long term effects on his growth and physical well being surely?
No, it's not a "remove from the home immediately" level of neglect but I think it does constitute neglect. Unfortunately it probably wouldn't interest social services because they are overburdened with far worse cases and HVs seem to be fairly thin on the ground these days too.
That's what is unreasonable - that health and social care has dropped to the level where children like this are falling through the net.

jesus my 2 year barely goes out either. i have to work and he goes to his grandparents. so sad that he has never fed the ducks 🙄

Well its not implausible to have a baseline, not of good parenting but adequate. Childcare has standards, based on considerable research. These include healthy eating policies, hygiene standards, access to sensory play or minimum access to outdoors everyday. There are public health guidelines on screentime. These standards could be implemented privately, for example nursery attendance could be compulsory like school, a child could be at risk for temporary removal if hygiene standards not met, or if no outdoor time was provided or excess screen time. In the recent past it was unthinkable that a man could be barred from his own home for striking his wife, yet we have those systems now. We have systems in place for intervening on behalf of a child if abuse is present so it would be just a matter of stretching a little bit further.

I do think state funded compulsory parenting class is a good idea during pregnancy. Maybe making it compulsory would be difficult but it could be linked to mat leave or benefits as an incentive. I'm in Ireland and children's allowance is not means tested, so it could be linked to that, maybe something similar in UK. I remember being shown in 2 mins how to bath a baby at the hospital and that was it, no instruction on breast feeding, no instruction on how to stop a choking infant. I had to go educate myself as I didn't have much family support and seek out any support services.

Also home schooling could be supervised more, with more accountability. I'm not dissing all home schoolers but less face it the reason some people do it is because they fall outside the radar of safeguarding or basic education standards. There is also a risk of being radicalised whether religiously or politically.

I appreciate what you're saying OP and I agree it doesn't sound an ideal situation for a toddler but even some of your own examples of things you've done to improve their life would be judged as bad parenting eg taking a young child to McDonald's.

Both of these sets of parents are being abusive, if you use the examples and definitions given in KCSIE. Neglect and emotional abuse. Just probably not badly enough to warrant any kind of involvement.

Would your cousin’s children be taken to a doctor if they were unwell, OP?

There are fascist views on the thread, including sterilising people who don't attend state parenting classes.

Once you start trying to control people, you go down a dangerous path.

We need more social services, education etc etc.

The issue is not law but service underfunding.

These standards could be implemented privately, for example nursery attendance could be compulsory like school, a child could be at risk for temporary removal if hygiene standards not met, or if no outdoor time was provided or excess screen time.

How do you think this could be monitored and enforced, and where exactly are DC going to be temporarily removed to?

But this is very low on voter priority lists - the legislation we have now is not the issue, resourcing is the issue.

So SIL in example 1. Okay, he is warm, clothed and fed. Not abused. But then he lives his life in pyjamas. You’ll see him in a Christmas onesie at 2pm in August.

So? You say you don't want to sound judgey but then you mention things like "their baby is vegan" and "he's wearing a xmas onesie in August". How are his pyjamas relevant at all? Unless he's overheating that is but it more just sounds that you're judging her for letting him wear pjs during the day. I totally get your point about him not leaving the house but I think you are more more judgemental than you'd like to think.

Many years ago at a conference for people running the public sector in the UK, I met John Bird who started The Big Issue.
He had an appalling life as a child, with parents who cared only about their drink and drugs and left their children to fend for themselves.
He asked the audience if they wanted an increase in the prison population. The vast majority insisted they didn't. He was in favour of more prisoners, because without prison he would never have learned to read or write.

Homogenous populations, whether in undiscovered tribes or in South Korea can 'police' family behaviour because of shared value systems. In multicultural societies we have proven ourselves incapable of dealing with the routine abuse of children; FGM, honour killings, child betrothal and marriage - a woman who committed fraud to have a baby boy circumcised against the parents wishes wasn't even jailed. These crimes are not the province of a single race, colour or creed, but as a society we are not prepared to protect these children.

Compared to what those running the country are prepared to tolerate, feeding a child exclusively on Pot Noodle fades into irrelevance - particularly when so many of those at the top were sent away to school at a very early age.

It's also because actual enforcement of even some of the more moderate sounding policies on the thread would have to look like something close to fascism. You can't actually police the amount of eg screen time or park visiting a child has without a huge amount of scrutiny, resources and powers to make people cooperate. It would have to be phenomenally intrusive, to have any teeth at all.

Well both examples are actually neglect, not just alternative parenting.

The problem is, there is no such thing as perfect parenting, and the ‘less than ideal but not bad enough for social services to get involved’ parenting is very, very subjective. Not to mention that in a lot of cases, removing children from parents doesn’t lead to a better outcome. (Not in all cases obviously). Your two examples are pretty extreme. But there will be huge differences in what people think is ‘good enough’ parenting.

Also, we ALL have some days where we are shit parents. That’s normal.

What can we agree on?
There are agreed minimum standards of childcare; they are used by nurseries and schools, and they aren't fascistic. You have to pass a course to work in those places.
Can we do something similar for children?

well it would have to start with public funding of course. Public health home visits once a year or so, developmental check ups etc. If school attendance can be monitored then so can pre school attendance. The monitoring of what goes on in the home would be the biggest hurdle, but people can pick up the phone to social services already if they have a concern, like OP in this situation, so it would be just a matter of widening the criteria for what constitutes abuse and neglect. it would only be a small extension of the systems already in place. As to where they go, they go to temporary foster homes or wherever they go when they are being physically or sexually abused. It is doable just needs political motivation.

That's heartbreaking.

I know you're saying it doesn't meet the threshold for social services involvement, but do you know that for a fact? If he has been referred and they've directly said no then okay, but I would certainly argue if you're aware of what's happening it's your duty to report. Even just so he's on their radar, so if someone else makes a report going forwards a case is built. And yes, I know they're under-resourced, focused more on families that are in more dire circumstances, but that doesn't change what this poor little boy is going through. It may not be outright abuse but it's a form of neglect. She's robbing him of normal life experiences and social opportunities, by the time he starts school he could be so behind he'll struggle to ever catch up.

Don't be the adult that just stands back and does nothing OP.

I’d also make the point that poverty has a huge part to play in ‘bad’ parenting. (Not saying that all those who live in poverty are bad parents, of course not. It just makes it so much harder).

No.

Because it is all subjective and contextual.

You can't drink as a nursery worker. Are you going to say parents can't drink? No. So how much can they drink? I don't drink at all - can I impose that limit on you?

Home is private.

How will you check? Do you plan home inspections? Mandatory drugs tests?

That would be fascism.

Total excuses. You said you took him to soft play TWICE. Ever. Maternity leave ending doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to ever take him out again. Presumably you still do things with your own child since finishing mat leave?

Your story about the baby group is pointless, and seems to be you saying "look it's her fault".

Of course it's her fault. She's totally shit. But it being her fault doesn't make life any better for her son. So what's the point in dwelling on it?

There is something you can do to force a change. You can become the loving, safe adult in that poor kid's life, to as great an extent as you are able. Which, I assume, is more than 2 soft play visits for his whole childhood.

You probably think I'm being a bit mean. I actually probably am. But I just feel you're getting something out of showing up how shit she is (how shit she is, after all, no argument there). Whereas if you were really so appalled at this poor kid's fate you would be doing everything you could to make it better, which is a LOT given you are family and his shit mother has no problem turning him over to anyone who'd have him by the sound of it.

No, you shouldn't have to do it; yes it's her fault; but that's the solution you claim to be seeking right there. It's a sticking plaster, sure, but it's better than a completely neglected childhood.

So I think if you really cared, your post would have been "what can I do to help enrich my nephew's life, given the constraints I have on time/money etc", not clutching your pearls that the state won't step in.

Trying to monitor the amount of screen time DC have would be infinitely, infinitely more than a small extension of the systems already in place. This is a batshit claim.

Let's say the state decides DC can have 2 hours a night of screen time. How exactly would this be monitored and enforced? Be specific. People being able to ring SS if they have concerns doesn't make monitoring of screen or outdoor time for all DC a viable possibility.

Also, you may not have noticed but good foster parents don't grow on trees and some of the placements vulnerable DC end up in are actively dangerous. We could probably do more by throwing more money at the issue, but why do you think there must automatically be a sufficient supply of good foster parents, people who the DC will be better off with, and where's your proof?

So we continue to not teach children about parenting, because you can't think how to devise a basic, age appropriate course. Its a wonder we teach kids anything at all.