To think that parents should face the judge when their child commits a heinous crime?

[TY78910]

Hear me out!!

So many stories in the news of kids murdering other kids.

Southport, knife crime the list goes on.

In many of these cases kids have been expelled from school, behavioural issues for years.

Yes, the system needs to do more and services involved need to be held accountable.

But AIBU to think that if your child has been causing trouble and it leads them to committing awful offences you should stand trial for neglect?

You should be able to demonstrate that you've done everything in your power to get that child help before it led to what it led to?

If you have contacted the right authorities and tried to get that child help but it didn't work or there were obstacles then fine - you've done everything in your power. But if you saw your kid get expelled, get involved with gangs etc and did NOTHING, you should be standing trial for neglect and possibly endangering the public. Your child is ultimately your responsibility.

Does that include absent parents or just the ones that stick around?

So can you absolve yourself of blame by dumping the kid outside the social services office or do you have to be the parent who leaves first (almost always the dad)?

There are some social workers on this thread I think who would know just how well parents can lie about how they treat their children.

Absolutely and others who absolutely deny their parenting, relationship history or general instability has any impact on their children despite it being very clear the kids are not coping.

1. the majority of neglected children won’t go on to commit heinous crimes - neglect might contribute but it isn’t the cause so clearly this has no weight in court
2. Sociopathy is inherited, I think? I think most/all people who commit these sorts of crimes have a genetic predisposition towards certain traits. Again, neglect may contribute but certainly doesn’t cause.
3. what would it serve? Sentencing is usually for either public safety or deterrence, it’s not often straightforward punishment.

Child neglect is a criminal offence; the question is really whether you should prosecute parents after their child has committed a serious crime.

The difficulty is that such parents have probably beeb neglecting their children in the years prior to any serious crime,

Only if there has been actual neglect. I work with so many families crying out for help for their children and everydoor slammed in their face. That isn't neglect.

We need lower SS thresholds, early intervention and community punishments for neglectful parents, who won't engage with parenting classes etc. Many don't give a shit because there's nothing that will come back on them.

Of course not; but not being fed, properly clothed, hit, not send to school, these can be criminal neglect. The effect on children to their behaviour can be significant.

if either of them were getting expelled, having violent outbursts, started going to places and I didn't know where they were, late nights, not respecting boundaries (and I don't mean rebelliously not cleaning their room when I ask them to) - I would be speaking to GPs, schools to ask for support.

Excellent. So what you’re saying is you have no experience of dealing with this kind of behaviour, no idea of the support (or lack of) that’s available and how difficult it is to access it and no advice about what parents should do when none of that helps or the child refuses to engage.

The school send them home, the police bring them home and when they’re at home, they’re violent. Social services will step in if the child alleges violence by the parents but won’t do anything about violence towards the parents - except to remind the parents that they’re responsible for keeping their other children safe from their sibling. If the parents do say they’re unable to cope and need the child out of their home, the local authority will place them somewhere where there will be less supervision and restrictions on their night time wanderings.

More children in care isn’t the answer- we
know that children in care have the worst outcomes

Plus there just isn’t capacity to house them

so basically you suggest moving them to a care home so they can commit their murder from there instead, doing nothing but absolving the possibility of prosecution.

Such examples are -

Child comes to school in clothes that are unfit for the weather. No coat, shorts in winter. Parent says they cannot make child wear coat or trousers. Truth, child has neither and parent will not buy them.

Child comes to school hungry. Parent says that child will not eat breakfast. Truth - there is no food in the house or child is expected at an inappropriate age to make own breakfast

Child attend school with large bruised face. Parent says that child got into fight with sibling. Truth, parent hit child.

These may all be the same child and these are very common excuses given by parents. By the time such a child enters puberty they may be developing behavioral problems. Children absolutely know when they are not loved or taken care of. They become very angry as a result

I've long felt that parents should be prosecuted for their child's crime. Ever since the Bulger killers, I remember I was about 12 when they were tried and the BBC reporter said something like "they arrived for sentencing knowing they would be spending their teenage years in prison." 12-year-old me knew that wasn't long enough, and I've not changed my mind on that.

When a crime is committed, the responsibility may be shared, but the shares must all add up to 100%. In some cases, it's clear that the blame is 100% on one offender. When a child commits the crime, the share must be split between them and their parents and/or legal guardians.

If (say) a crime is committed where the sentence would be 20 years in prison. A 10 year old has committed this crime and it is judged that given their age they should only receive a six year detention order. That's 14 years still owed, this should be split between the parents who get locked up for 7 years each (assuming both are alive).

This would be a much fairer system. Parents would hopefully take more responsibility for how they raise their child. Crimes would be punished properly, even if the sentence had to be shared. At least the victim/relatives would know someone is doing the time.

The background of Thompson and Venables mothers was illuminating. These were not good mothers. Not one person posting here would say so or let these women look after their own children.

What about any other children in the family? Do they just lose their parents and go into care?

@Dotjones how about 6 years for the child and the rest divided as follows:-
2 years for the CAMHS manager who decided repeatedly the child didn’t need a service, 2 years for the Director of Education who denied funding for the specialist school placement, 3 years for the Director of Social Work who refused funding for respite and family support services, 3 years for the SEND Coordinator who said repeatedly the child was fine at school and 4 years for the absent dad who abused the mum and then fucked off to leave her to it?

There are many, many people who are not good parents and yet society lets them crack on because it doesn't want the inconvenience of caring for/parenting their kids.

Often the dad leaves too, so the kids are left with one poor parent (the mum), whose inadequacy is compounded by having insufficient resources to parent properly and who is set up to take the blame if anything goes wrong.

There's no way they would prosecute absent parents.

If one of my dc committed an awful crime and I was to be prosecuted too, do you really think that they would prosecute their dad who hasn't been around for the best part of 10 years too?

And if ops idea is anything to go by I (if i were a neglectful parent) would see my kid going down a dangerous road, and simply call the doctor or school, thereby putting the responsibility on them and absolving myself with one call.

There's a lot that could be done, which would require funding, which is getting cut every year. I really don't believe the answer is to throw parents in jail (what would happen with the other kids for a start). If they are part of the crime, cover up the crime, or there has been abuse then they need to be charged separately for that.

Some parents do the best job they can do and it's still shit. Some parents probably do a perfectly reasonable job and end up with a kid who does awful things. It's just life.

Out of many millions of people there is the odd bad apple and while we all love a neat reason or explanation or person to blame you can't allow for how a person is affected by their circumstances.

2 people will have a similar life experience (abuse, neglect etc) and one will grow into a healthy happy adult and one will not.

If you've never had a troubled depressed disengaged teen then lucky you but guess what as a parent you can do everything in your power to help and STILL not reach them. For most its a phase but for some you lose them and there's little you can do.

I find the judgement on here unreal sometimes.

If you’re looking at child neglect that may become abuse and lack of parenting skills then things like Sure Start are the answer. Programs that are proactive and get involved before problems start. They’re great for everyone and they don’t stigmatise those using the service because they’re open to all. They’re particularly helpful for new parents who’ve grown up with chaotic or dysfunctional families, spent time in care and haven’t experienced good parenting. They don’t have a model to work from. It also means that there are eyes on the children to spot deliberate harm.

Where does it end though?
Are you gonna drag the grandparents before the judge because they're responsible for not teaching their kids well enough how to parent by example?
You can't blame other people for one person's choices. That's one step away from 'you made me do it'.

@Goldbar - agree but both of these women were inadequate parents. Thompson's mother was an alcoholic and Venables was serious depressive. They both left their children alone for hours at a time. Thompson spent his time harming animals and his siblings children beat each other up and took amusement in hurting each other.

Venables had attempted to throttle a boy to death at school before he killed James Bulger.

I doubt either of them thought they made murderers, but of course, they failed as parents, Venables was particularly feeble, citing that she had bought him Christmas presents and her son had been much loved. But it did not much sound like it.

@bombastix. And the fathers? Is their inadequacy also relevant? Or only the mothers?

The exception I’d make when it comes to holding parents partially responsible for their children’s crimes is when they knowingly provide/allow access to the weapons used in the crime. I’m not talking about parents being charged if their child takes a knife from the kitchen and stabs someone but I do think it’s reasonable to take action if, like in the Michigan school shooting case, the parents allowed the boy access to guns and took him to shooting ranges. The boy who murdered Brianna Ghey had a fascination with knives, collected blades and bought the hunting knife he used to kill her on a family holiday. He was described as isolated and a loner. I don’t understand how any parent would think it was a good idea to allow him to have weapons.

I agree and I also think of the parents of the teenagers who murdered Brianna Ghey who seemed to be decent people. I remember seeing that one of the mothers met up with Brianna's mum too.

News - Brianna's mother meets mum of daughter's killer www.bbc.com/news/uk-68494417 BBC News - Brianna's mother meets mum of daughter's killer www.bbc.com/news/uk-68494417

Having said that, I do understand the point the OP is trying to make but as with much in life it's not always that cut and dried.

The moment we start punishing people for crimes committed by others, we abandon all pretence at civilisation. It is sadly telling that more and more posts and threads like this are appearing on social media. We have lost our way and abandoned decency and compassion.

If anyone remembers Tracy Connelly (responsible the death of her own son Baby P) then this explains her background and parenting, which was also neglectful. This traumatic upbringing probably meant that Connelly did not have protective mothering instincts but narcissistic ones.

Warning; this is very grim read.

www.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/11/tracey-connelly-baby-p-mother