To think Super Nanny Jo Frost has lost the plot?

[Pekoe78]

Assuming she sanctions the views on her social media page. Jo Frost has shared this bizarre scary post claiming that an unclean home is the “number one sign” of child abuse. How is she getting away with such inaccurate information? Surely she knows the difference between abuse and neglect and that actual abuse can happen in any home. If a child is actually suffering from real neglect, simply telling the parents “clean your house” is not going to help a complex situation. So what is she trying to achieve apart from making parents terrified of being accused of something because they are behind with cleaning?!

Her views on how to parent are completely opposite to mine.

But she's completely right here, you don't have to be hitting and swearing at your child to be abusing them. Neglect is the everyday face of abuse and a dirty home is a huge red flag for it.

I visit lots of houses in a professional capacity where people just don't see the mess or understand the impact its having on their children. When I pointed out that an 8 year old whose unable to play with their toys because there's simply no room on the floor as it was full of hoarded junk was neglect the parents where aghast.

Maybe JF is ‘expanding her brand’ to include cleaning tips.

I’m far more baffled as to why people are actually taking a not very controversial statement from a gobby reality tv show presenter who, from my vague recollections of Supernanny, wore suits and pointed her finger a lot, at all seriously.

I used to work in this area and statistically I'd say it was true to be fair, being dirty (not messy/cluttered/disorganised but actual filth) is a sign of a chaotic home lacking in boundaries and other positive factors.

Yes there were exceptions to the rule and abuse can strike any family but it's generally true.

It's a ducking weird and unhelpful post though!!

I assure you the neglectful and abusive parents are not following Jo Frost for tips 🫠 she will just be stressing out tired parents surrounded by normal family chaos now panicking about this!

Yes this. What’s the message here? If you don’t neglect or abuse your children a dirty house alone isnt going to get you accused of this. If you do neglect or abuse them then cleaning is a great way to cover it up.

The squalor IS the abuse.

It’s not the best writing as it lacks clarity but so often we see accounts of abuse in the news and the home is dirty and chaotic. I’m sure it’ll be a correlation and that’s what she’s getting at.

I work in ed and if I somehow happened to learn a child lived in a very dirty home, I’d report it as a potential safeguarding concern as, like others have said, it could be a small part of a bigger puzzle of signs of neglect or even abuse. In the same way I report repeatedly soiled uniform or a child looking withdrawn. I say that as a parent too who often complains about my own messy house! But that’s not the same thing.

I think what she's saying is making children live in a filthy home is abusive. That in itself is an abusive act, so provide them with somewhere clean to live.

She's right. A filthy home often goes alongside neglect.

Parents so unable to cope with basic essential daily functions that their house is filthy and they live in filth, are not in this camp.

Not in my experience. For one thing, paedophile parents who live in squalid conditions already have access to children-their own, and they can also access the children of other squalor living families because this way of life is normalised for the children and the parents.

Neither squalor or cleanliness are good indicators of sexual abuse.

@Ludovik

Excellent post.

Yes she is right, a very dirty home is abuse. If a dog was kept in filthy conditions, the rspca inspectors term that as abuse. They would take it away.

Oh for goodness sake. 'Scummy mummy' as a phrase is ridiculous. As much as deciding that such a moniker can be equated to child abuse. 🙄

Having done a job that took me into a lot of homes in London, both poor and wealthy, I disagree with your assertion that it's poverty. Many of the wealthy (square mile executive type people) I met lived in absolute filth behind closed doors, because they expect not to do even the bare minimum for themselves. They even leave basic washing up / dishwasher loading to the cleaners, who they are too stingy to pay properly for the time to do a proper job, so there was usually a layer of grime and smell to everything.

Poverty goes a few ways - I saw the ones who are too ill to work so they tend to struggle with the labour aspects of cleaning, the ones who are too busy smoking weed/heroin to bother making their place livable, and the ones where what little they have gleams because they take care of it, knowing it can't be easily replaced.

She means real filth the sort that hardly anyone on this thread will have ever dealt with or seen. I used to know someone that had a messy and slightly grubby house that was way below what I would like to live in but it was just slightly grubby and she does not mean that. How about a house where the dirt is visible and encrusted and there is a strong smell of stale urine, rubbish strewn about, maybe even faeces on the floor. Health hazard level.

It's what they're known as, and they've become extremely popular. Almost like a "anti-hinch" movement.

Possibly. And I'd never have known about it unless I'd seen this thread!

That said, if unqualified celebs stray into important, challenging areas, like asserting 'facts' about child abuse, it does need to be called out on the basis of mis/disinformation.

She appears to be confusing correlation and causation. I'm surprised, as its a very unintelligent error to make in this context and i would have thought she was brighter than that. She surely can't think that potential abusers will lose the urge to abuse if they clean their houses, or that if people let their houses become dirty they will suddenly escalate to child abuse. So perhaps she's it's her use of language that's the issue and she really means to say that not keeping a child's home clean is neglectful/abusive but has got muddled by the correlation stats.

I agree with her a filthy house is a form of abusive. It puts a small child at risk, and is not at all healthy for older ones. All types of conditions can come from filth from skin conditions to respiratory issues.

I agree with this, my house growing up was filthy and if anyone had seen it they’d have realised we were being neglected!

Well that's easily done isn't it? 'Sort out your filthy house & stop neglecting your children'. So that's all that's needed. 🤦🏻‍♀️

But given this is one of the first time in ages that Supernanny has been mentioned on MN, perhaps it has fulfilled its function expertly?

Not watching her video, however as someone trained in safeguarding, neglect is a form of abuse.

You could be the kindest gentle parents but if your child lives in squalor your abusing them.

Why do socail workers check the kids bedroom? Think about it

Messy = normal busy household
Dirty = no excuse.

It's the 'clean your house' bit that winds me up, obviously coming from someone with no experience of working in mental health.
Ok so I'll tell that to a traumatised mum in an on off abusive relationship who just sits staring at the walls all day after school drop off until it's time to put the mask back on for school pick up. The literal act of parenting just wipes her out, is it better that she cleans her house or does what she needs to survive so she can be a present parent when her kids are home?
Also what's the alternative? Put her kids in care? How will that help either the mum or kids?

It's what they're known as, and they've become extremely popular. Almost like a "anti-hinch" movement.

@NewUsernameIPresume

Yes I know. But it's a) a silly phrase and b) ridiculous to decide that women using this phrase are belonging to a category of dirty abusive parents.