Parents need to open thier eyes

[Direstraightsagain]

Just read this article where the Mother of this poor girl said she ‘feels let down by police and social services’ . I feel for the mother too as obviously she must be devastated by the chain of events. However, AIBU to find it ridiculous that the mother, who is meant to parent the child, yet has given her free access to the internet/big bad world (I assume by mobile phone) now blames the police and social services !
rather than taking responsibility for not adequately looking after her 11 year old child? The parent seems unaware that they facilitated this, and should reflect on that.

More generally - I’d imagine there should now be laws / regulations to ensure parents protect their children in the same way they can’t easily physically walk into a room degenerates, they shouldn’t be able to virtually either and parents have to have some culpability for that and be prosecuted if they don’t adhere to basic child protection.

news.sky.com/video/how-girl-11-became-target-of-predators-after-sending-photo-to-a-boy-13183402

It's very difficult to withhold technology from kids this age. My ds is expected to use his phone everyday in school and for homework. Kids predominantly socialise online or arrange things online. It's not right but it's the world we live in.

It’s really not that difficult. You limit what they can access, physically check their phone regularly, have penalties if they’re deleting messages so you can’t check, take phones off them after a certain time at night, don’t let them disappear into their rooms for hours on their home. Take the phone off them if they break the rules, explain to school it’s a disciplinary measure and ask for homework to be provided in an alternative format, they can’t socialise with friends - too bad, the old equivalent of being grounded.

If it’s a choice between having unfettered access, with all the risks that brings, or being inconvenienced at school and with friends I know what I’d choose.

The difficulty is parents start kids off on screens at a very young age, so by the time they’re 10/11 removing access generates so much angst and conflict parents give in.

The services we have are supposed to be there regardless of what the parent is doing, if a child is being exploited because the parents aren’t capable of protecting them, then there is a legal pathway for that.

Can you imagine the uproar if a child was removed from their parent because their parent wouldn’t remove their phone? God even the idea that a child shouldn’t take their phone to school is met with absolute outrage, despite the bullying and anti social behaviour generated by phones in school and the interruptions to learning.

By the time online grooming has become an issue as in this child’s situation the horse has bolted. The child needs a lot of work around safety and abuse, to understand their choice to send intimate pictures has had an awful, unintended consequence, to help them find the ability to set boundaries and to work within the boundaries set by adults in their life. To recover from the abuse they’ve experienced.

The parents need to be able to separate out what their child is accountable for (sending intimate pictures) from the consequent abuse that they are not responsible for. They then need to set tight boundaries to protect their child, if that means less social contact online they need to find an alternative way to facilitate (and supervise where needed) social contact. That means very involved parenting which strikes a balance between autonomy and protection.

Too many parents err on the side of “they’re a teenager and need to be independent” rather than recognising that for this teen in this circumstance closer supervision and support is needed.

I must admit to not being as careful as we might have been with DDs a few years ago but it was all so new, and DD2 was 11 in 2020 in lockdown - games and phone was the only social activity that was available at times. I tried hard to understand what the apps were and watch what they were doing but it was not easy.

Parents can do a fair bit but the tech companies and schools need to be forced to take more responsibility also, things have proliferated so quickly in the last five years even and it is hard to keep up. DD2's former school were so into tech that they were all expected to access even their timetable on their phones while at school.

School needs to move away from apps and software, go back to paper homework diaries and actually mark books again so kids can at least keep their phones in the bags and just have basic phones that just do calls and messages.

Well, in the 1970s and 1980s they had to make dozens of public information films as parenting was so fucking woeful, so I wouldn't be so quick to berate modern parenting.

@Rainbowsponge @fitzwilliamdarcy @DavidBeckhamsrightfoot

I don't like a nanny state either but (unless you don't believe in democracy) we do need to believe or hope that society can change and that our politicians can legislate for social behaviours as well as criminal ones.

For instance, in 1970 people would have laughed at the idea of compulsory seatbelts being enforced. This didn't happen until the early 80s. These days, people consider it the norm, and not wearing one is frowned upon.

Likewise with smoking. Those of us who are old enough remember that smoking was everywhere - bus, cinema, planes, workplaces. A change in social attitutes and a change in the law were both required.

I could go on. The point I am making is that social change can happen spontaneously, but often it needs the law to intervene. As a child of the 1960s it was the norm for kids to be smacked/caned, thankfully no longer.

I think it is true to say that - in part due to the pandemic - many now believe that the rules don't apply to them - including some politicians. The social contract needs renewal, and I'm sorry but some of this will require political action.

Sometimes the nanny state is necessary if parents cannot, well, parent.

Same can be said for random new partners

I think these kind of reports are often used as rage bait. It doesn’t mention what this mother has actually done, just that she’s been asking for help. People automatically assume that there’s been no discipline or phone restrictions and it’s all the mother’s fault- as usual.

I grew up in the 80s and have friends who were on the receiving end of CSA and grooming because they went out unsupervised and some of the parents didn’t even care. I don’t think parenting has got worse I think it’s just more widely reported.

Preventing online grooming and underage access to inappropriate content should be something taken on by politicians. Of course it’s not easy and requires constant attention, however, millions are spent on monitoring for fraud, money laundering and terrorism. Child safety just isn’t that cost effective.

I’m not familiar with that particular case, but a lot of the time it’s the parents that are the issue.

I’m a police officer and a large amount of my time is taken up with what boils down to ineffective parenting. Runaway kids, who have often made it from one end of the country to the other. They are at huge risk of grooming, criminal exploitation, sexual exploitation. The usual answer from parents is “well I can’t keep him from going where he wants”.

Or with children who have committed offences and need interviewing, “Little Jimmy says he’s not coming and I can’t make him”. I wouldn’t have been given the choice as a child!! My parents never raised a hand to me, never threatened violence and weren’t cruel. But they were firm; the idea that I could run amok or not engage with official processes would be unthinkable. This attitude is everywhere and it’s the teenagers that rule the roost in most homes I go into.

I don’t know what the solution is.

I don’t think this is the case, or at least there were just as many parents who didn’t want to parent 30/60/70 years ago. What’s it called when you open the back door for your young child to run off and play wherever they want and tell them not to come back until dinner other than not wanting to parent? Very commonplace in the previous generation of parenting.

The problem is children have so much more access to dangerous situations than ever before and too many parents are wilfully ignorant and naive to that.

If only you knew my sd story.
Her parents did absolutely everything to protect her online, even withholding a phone for several years. It took one random chat on a game deemed safe that she was taught to then hide by the first groomer.
Parents are not to blame. The sickos are

This doesn't work with the WORLD wide Web.

Thanks for your reply.

It would work with the 'world wide web' if you prevent children from having access to it. No uncensored access to the internet would mean less access to harmful social media. But parents would need to do their job too.

So long as whatever they come up with does not affect other people.

For example, When you get a new phone contract, it's always blocked for anything not suitable for children - even if it's on a contract. You have to be over 18 to take out a contract.

If it's a parent taking it out for a child, it should be on them to make sure there are child protections in place. I should not have to jump through hoops and prove I'm over 18 when I bloody well had to be to sign the contract.

How would this be legislated for, though? Seatbelts and smoking were monitored outside the home - kids not being able to purchase cigarettes from vendors, people being pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. There wasn't legislation to prevent adults from smoking in the home with kids, or kids smoking in the home.

I don't see how you could legislate to prevent kids from having access to the internet in their own homes. They actually need the internet for various and entirely appropriate things, as do we all.

What's needed is for parents to make sure they're not endangering themselves, not politicians trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.

What Foxblue said.

You can’t protect them from everything and they may find a way around restrictions that you don’t spot, but you can substantially reduce the risk. All it takes is a few hours googling and working through how to set up their phone safely when they first get one, by following clear instructions (eg Apple has step by step screenshots on how to secure an iPhone).

I know some parents have neither the time nor the knowledge to do this type of thing - but I suspect it’s a minority and that many people just hope for the best and assume bad things won’t happen to their DC.

I’ve noticed that people with direct experience of safeguarding are usually very on it - maybe we need some public information campaigns that show the risks and real life (anonymised) cases where things have gone badly wrong for the child.

Children should be allowed access to the internet in their own homes but as a parent they have a responsibility to safeguard their child.

Ok I watched the film.

The parents did check the phone.

They reported it to the police who failed to act.

They asked social work for help who took months to become involved and by that point the child had been groomed and behaviour had spiralled. Social work continued to fail the child for another 2 years.

Its not as simple to just blame parents. Police and social work have failed here.

Absolutely.

Its so easy for people to sit back, be judgemental and believe their own parenting is perfect and it could never happen to their own cotton wool protected children.

Every child is at risk. We need to teach them how to navigate the world, how to seek help, and how to feel safe about asking for help. Just switching of the internet wont cut it.

Sorry to hear about your SD

I can’t wait the video atm, but if the parents knew she had inappropriate contact with an adult why did she still have access to the internet for it to escalate for months after this point?
Genuine question, is that addressed?

I agree with this!

I also think social media providers should do more to regulate this activity to protect children online. Yes, we can say it’s the parents responsibility around access to a smart phone etc but tech companies need to do more and shouldn’t be let off the hook. why does Snapchat have age filters so that an adult can de age themselves and create a profile that’s ripe for grooming children? The age profiles for both Instagram and Snapchat are 13 do you think they’re safe for 13 year olds to use or could the tech companies do more to protect them? I follow scrolling to death on Instagram and the stories of children on that account are not dissimilar to the one linked by the OP. Not all parents will have the conversation or monitor phone usage so I think tech companies should be held to account and do more to protect children online.

The whole scenario is confusing.

The girl was 11 and sent a picture of herself in her bra to a boy at school. He sent it around the class and it escalated from there. Men and boys were demanding more pictures and became threatening and abusive so the mother called the police. She sent another picture.

Then the girl started to meet these men and was sexually assaulted. This happened frequently.

At no point did her mum take away her phone or put safeguards in place.

Cinocino- packages to in post lockers, post offices containing new devices that are then hidden in the home and brought out at night when the house is asleep.

We removed everything. They sent more.

Unless parents step up there is nothing you can do from a legislative or public service level. Parents need to refuse access, use firewalls and parental controls, remove phones at night, check the whereabouts of their children as they get older and so on. If a problem still arises then there should be back up from statutory services but that's in extreme cases, mostly problems can cease to exist by the word NO!

People don't want to parent anymore, they want to be friends with their children. 13/14 is as young as connected smartphones are appropriate and only with controls plus adequate safety grounding. If no kids had them then the issue just wouldn't exist in preteens. Schools need to start the process by saying only brick phones with cameras disabled are allowed on school premises switched off from arrival until leaving, in emergency parents can call the school office which worked before phones!

I do agree that the sickos are to blame as well as a society that places more blame on the victim than the perpetrators and gives them a slap on the wrist when they break the law.