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.

Indeed. Do absent fathers get off scot free? How much culpability for their child's delinquency ought they to bear?

And I get fed up of seeing the fathers who have walked away coming forward when there's a tragedy involving children and declaring their sorrow.

Yes, they should.

I see it as similar to dogs. There are some rare instances where bad breeding is to blame, but the responsibility and buck stops at the owner for the vast majority of behavioural issues.

Some parents don't put the effort into raising their children properly, they leave them to effectively raise themselves on phones/the internet and don't step in promptly from a very young age to teach correct behaviour.

Also in the case of single parent families, a significant effect of having a policy like this will be to punish women (who may already be victims of male violence and aggression) for the crimes of their male children. Any issue there?

Nope I'm suggesting earlier, better interventions overseen by SS. Family support is a post code lottery that many children lose. I don't know why you assumed removal. But earlier interventions and lower thresholds could mean removal from birth for subsequent births. I have lived in deprived areas of Liverpool and seen baby after baby that don't stand a chance.

Look, I'm in no way saying that everything is so linear! People on here seem to go: child commits crime - parent automatically in jail, not unless they made one call to GP. And as a result calling me judgemental and 'dumb'.

Every case is unique, and I sincerely believe that it needs to be reviewed (once again blue sky thinking, I do appreciate that the systems we have in place are not fit for purpose currently, let alone to add an additional layer).

There will be cases in which there is no neglect, the parents are as wonderful as they can be and nothing could have been done to prevent a crime, the kid was just wired that way - fine, no signs of neglect, no behavioural issues prior to the crime that needed to be addressed. Those parents should not have a case to answer to.

There are however, very dysfunctional families where there is neglect, abuse, genuine no interest in what the child is up to, signs are ignored. I genuinely believe that parents of those children need to be held accountable.

And if somebody calls the GP once, of course that's not enough to "get yourself off the hook" - there's always a very clear difference between actively trying to intercept a situation, and doing something just to tick a box.

It doesn't need to be as cutthroat as people are saying. In an ideal world, people's circumstances will be thoroughly assessed and decisions to penalise would be made on those findings. It could be that a monetary fine suffices, jail sentences for those who for example belong to gangs themselves, courses for parents that should've done a little bit more.

I just don't think it's easily done.

What I'd say is that you don't often get children committing serious crimes without a seriously dysfunctional family life behind them. Being violent or abusive is mostly learned or permitted in families.

Thompson's mother beat her son with a stick. Alcoholics are horrible, selfish people.

Venables mother was pretty sure she hadn't done anything and her children weren't scared of her. But they were.

After these events, parents will say lots of things to avoid being blamed. You can't expect them to be honest. They can't afford to be.

@bombastix totally agree, which is why these things would be reviewed thoroughly (house visits, school records, health records) and something is bound to pop up that could prove the parent is lying

I see your point of view, as women we often get the shit end of the stick in every walk of life.

But if a single mother (for arguments sake) sees her teenager put a knife in their backpack before leaving the house and does nothing about it, that should just be let go on the account that she's had it tough?

you clearly have been living an exceptionally sheltered life if you think families/parents can access help when a child is 'causing trouble'. What kind os support where you able to access when you asked Camhs/Social Services/LEA/GP/A&E for help and support when your child clearly needed help??? I give you a clue: NADA.

Ignorance is really bliss.

Perhaps if the investigation into the crime digs up evidence of neglect, yes.

However, let's not just jump to blaming the parents as often the entire system has failed.

I agree! I maintained that throughout this whole thread (@Snowy7)

Also, we are a country that loooooooves a bloody inquiry. I'm all for looking at all possible failings.

I admire experienced social workers (endangered species) who sniff this stuff out and see people for what they are.

All too often you have someone inexperienced, who must assume the courage of a lion to visit homes like these and speak to the children. Normally a young woman who will be met with a hard faced set of parents who know just what to say. If they can get in. The kids have been half terrified to say nothing.

I would make it against the law to use any force on children as a punishment. These people rely on it. Sometimes I see posts on smacking or biting on here, or different treatment for stepchildren or meltdowns in autistic children. Some of it worries me as people seeking approval to do things to children they would not dare entertain for an adult.

I worked in domestic violence and disordered people related crime for a while. A lot of these people who hurt their children are traumatized themselves. But they can be very frightening when you ask or find out their reasons. They are messed up people who hide it by learning what to say, or having the right bits of paper or diagnoses

You can say why should say I pay if my DC commits a crime and I did nothing wrong ? But as things stand, everybody else is left to pay for the crimes of your DC. Everybody else can also say that they did nothing wrong … and with greater legitimacy!

Ultimately, I think if you create them then you should pay for them and their misdemeanours ( up to the age of criminal responsibility ).

We also have a problem with absent fathers. This would encourage potential deadbeat dads to either stay around and be a parent

I'm out. You can't fine people for this stuff. If there is criminal neglect, prosecute them for that it.

I honestly despair of how a lot of parents (if you can call them that) are raising children today. No rules, no boundaries, fed junk food, and no respect for anyone in authority/school. All behaviour blamed on SEN. Parents too busy on their phones to care. God help society in 10/15 years time.

I absolutely agree that parents have to be held accountable - in what way, I'm not sure in truth, but actions always have consequences.

Only if aiding and a betting, destroying evidence,false alibi.

The Southport parents did everything they could to get help from the state and were failed at every turn. They asked for him to be sectioned as they knew he was a danger to society. They were involved in getting him reported to all kinds of agencies. They were desperate for help and powerless.

I think your suggestion is ridiculous.

You're saying it as if social services never get involved in families after something like this.

There are multiple threads in here from parents who have disturbed and violent children, who have begged school, mental health teams, social services and police for help. The last one i read, their child had threatened to attack the other parent and siblings. They got a leaflet. Their child chooses not to engage with any service.

Apart from the moral angle, there is no actual point in presenting when there is nothing parents can actually do to get help.

At what age would we stop holding parents accountable?

If I commit a heinous crime at aged 43, would my 68 year old mother have to face the judge? After all, it's likely my hypothetical upbringing had something to do with me committing the crime, it just took me a while to do it.

Also, I think it sends the message out that you aren't responsible for your actions and it is your parents fault.. when does that end? When are criminals fully responsible for their actions?

Back then it wasn't rare for parents to physically punish their children with objects.

Only if the parent left marks and a teacher at a proactive school noticed did social services get involved.

Physical chastisement of children has still not been banned in England and we are in a different century.

Someone in an "agency" would have been aware one was an alcoholic and the other was depressive, however back in the late 90s the state was still a worse parent than an alcoholic and a depressive.

@Reugny - Thompson's mother was an alcoholic and beat her children with a stick. Not only was she drunk, it was fairly obvious that she had gone beyond reasonable conduct.

Her children were also said fight, beat each other from the biggest to the smallest when she was out at the pub. It may have been a different century, but that did not make it reasonable.

I would have it banned outright. Many an abuser claims their right to hit their children. And tell their children they can.

I say this because I've read reports from parents who beat their children with belts, sticks, canes and worse.

They all start the same way by saying it's light smack, nothing more. And quickly cite their right to do it.

Quite simply, nobody should be held accountable for someone else's actions unless they caused them, or assisted them.

So no, parents shouldn't be prosecuted because their child has been violent.

The tragic James Bulger case lowered the age of criminal responsibility to 10 .

They were both in the care system - who would be held account for their actions ?

Additionally , for parents who have brought up several kids in the same way to have one who does something heinous - is that fair ?