To Expect Parents To Be Held More Strongly To Account For Their Children's Behaviour?

[BigFatBully]

I believe that parents should be held more greatly to account for their children's unacceptable behaviour.

For a case study, take the sale of alcohol and the whole fining/prosecution situation that we have in the UK around under 18 year olds purchasing alcohol. The burden of responsibility should always fall to the parents to ensure that their child doesn't buy alcohol or attempt to, not the poor shopkeeper. It should be the parents who are fined if their child attempts to buy alcohol, not the sales agent. As it stands, we have a situation where grown adults can't legitimately buy alcohol without carrying a passport or driving licence on them, even if they are considerably above the age of legal drinking. I was talking to someone the other day who said that they were asked to prove that they aren't a child to buy a bottle of wine at 30 years old. It's a ludicrous situation. On a similar note, I was behind a 40+ woman in the queue at a toiletries store and she was asked to prove that she wasn't a child in order to buy a pair of tweezers.

I don't know what jurisdiction other Mumsnetters are in, but in the UK we have a problem with children behaving wholly unacceptably and the parents not bothering to do anything about it because of lack of accountability. In my city, there are areas where the bus services have had to be curtailed of an evening because someone's little "darlings" (I could use other words but they might not be in-keeping with forum rules) are throwing bricks, eggs and goodness knows what at the windows. Social services should investigate as soon as the police raise concerns about illegal behaviour. The parents should take the blame for this behaviour.

A couple of months ago, there was a girl in a city centre that I was in who was threatening grown ups with a knife, whilst riding a bicycle on a pedestrianised street. The "mother" later emerged from a bookmakers, seemingly off of her face on some kind of substance. I told the mother she should teach her child how to behave and what's not acceptable and the mother didn't seem to care less. If it was down to me, the "mother" would be charged with causing an affray by neglecting to control her child, who threatened people with a knife.

Being a parent is not an easy job, and it's not a part time job either. When my children are older, they will not be loitering outside shops and trying to buy alcohol or to encourage adults to buy for them. They shall certainly be treating others with due respect. They will not be on the streets, bored and vandalising property. My husband and I will encourage them to develop hobbies and interests, such as football, music, art, even cinema. We have planned to reduce our hours at work and budgeted for it, so that when the children become too old for our au-pair, that we can ensure that they aren't on the streets, getting up to mischief. We are going to educate our children on the law and the consequences of breaking the law. Of course, we allow them to play and let off steam. They do push boundaries occasionally but we always let them know that certain kinds of behaviour is unacceptable and will result in sanctions such as no internet access for a week, or even longer depending on the severity of the misbehaviour. We allow our children to play and they do occasionally act up or be a little 'cheeky' but they are well aware that there is a line that they do not cross.

What do you think about the matter of unacceptable behaviour of other people's children? Does it anger you that the parents aren't held accountable as much as they should? Are your own children ever guilty of behaving in an un-savoury manner? Vote in the poll and share your thoughts.

I do think that children's behaviour would change and crime would fall in the next generation, if parents are held to be responsible for their kids involving police.
So parents give their kids more attention and care about their education.
I say that for the children's sake, but of course society would benefit.

I'm thinking of the father whose little boy slipped up in the supermarket. "Ger oop, ya cloomsy git." I could only wonder what life at home is like for that little boy, especially as the mother said nothing. What chance does he have with his father as a role model.

The problem is even though some go down a path because of their parents (either through abuse neglect or apathy) a certain number go in spite of great parenting

then how do you judge parenting time/money/love - what about the single parent working 3 jobs to make ends meet who can’t spend time with their child, a mother stuck in an abusive relationship?

then what happens at 18 are they suddenly not responsible so how does that work? Parents keep children at home with rules and suddenly push them out of the nest?

Not only that half the stuff @BigFatBully mentions I am sure quite a lot of us did - underage drinking/hanging out in groups at a park/walking the streets in a group maybe even stealing something from a shop/going on a bus/train without paying or claiming still a child/throw up or wee in a public place etc. How many of us honestly haven’t done at least something at 16 we hope our children won’t do!

but knife crime/anti social behaviour needs to be tackled I agree but not by penalising parents

That’s not what you said initially - you said ‘they kept going towards a fireplace at my husband's parent's house’ which implies they went towards it more than once.

Taking your child to a home with a fireplace doesn’t make you a bad mum, but watching them go towards it more than once and not intervening until they ‘tried to go near to it again’ certainly seems careless.

if they had got to it, you may not have been quick enough to prevent them hurting themselves - remember Claudia Winkleman’s child? Honestly everyone makes mistakes, and everyone has to allow their children the chance to be trusted and learn. But you’ve come here to denounce parents who get it wrong, or who fail to live up to your standards. So surely you should live up to them too?

What makes you think that the hypothetical deterrent of prosecution if the child came to police notice would change this father’s behaviour?

They walked towards it. Was told not to and it was explained why it was dangerous. They walked towards it again and were told that there would be consequences if they walked towards it again.

Instruction
Explanation
Consequence

They were never at any point within touching distance of the fire. They walked towards it on two occasions. They knew when I told them that if they continued to try to walk towards it, there would be consequences. Our children know that when we say there will be consequences, there actually will be consequences.

It's no good saying "if you do this again, we will take such and such away from you" and the child does it again to then say "If you do it one more time, such and such will be taken away from you". That sends a message out that the consequences are just empty threats. They need to know that if Mummy and Daddy say there will be consequences for poor behaviour, that there will actually be consequences. It's important to follow through with what you say you are going to do. If children can learn to respect authority from an early age, it makes it easier for them to understand instructions/prohibitions when they reach the difficulty of teenage years.

If a police officer told you to stop swearing or you will be arrested, then you continued to swear and they didn't follow through with the arrest, would you respect the police's instructions or think they are a joke? Consistency is key.

You do get though that it still might not work @BigFatBully thst all of this could be for nothing.

and I say that as mother of two teens who are both very good and the 16 is good not because I parent her like a toddler or she respects my authority but because we respect each other and I treat her as the 16 she is with autonomy and respect. BUT I have also been lucky with her and her friends and decisions made

And I have never take ln anything away from either of my children not once

You don’t seem to be grasping the point.

You allowed them to walk towards it twice and only on the third time told them there would be consequences. You allowed your children to potentially endanger themselves twice whilst in your line of sight and yet you’re lecturing parents of much older, much more independent children on how they should be accountable for actions they cannot see.

All your guff about consequences is meaningless. The consequence for your children might well have been serious injury, but great news, they know that you will punish them if you say you will. Fat use that is.

@BigFatBully

what you are saying does not work. When you have teenagers you will see.

1. parents are held accountable for their children’s actions. Any court costs for under 18s are paid by their parents.
2. parenting orders are a thing and can be enforced by a court on a parent where it is felt their parenting or lack of is impacting offending.

there aren’t many of these given out because ultimately most parents are trying their best. But they do happen.

social services have no statutory powers at child in need, parents have to agree, and even if the parents do, the teenagers may not.

putting every family at child protection where there is anti social behaviour is not feasible, SS would be overrun. And ultimately what’s the punishment if no changes are made? The child is placed in care, have you any idea of a) how much this costs? B) the lack of placements already available for the children who need to be in care or c) the impact being in care has on children and the fact this would almost guarantee this behaviour would increase not decrease.

it’s all well and good sitting on your high horse with I will make sure XYZ is in place. I have news for you that I have met many a parent who has done that and yet has still found themselves in a court room with their child.

mistakes happen, you can’t physically pick up a teen to stop them touching the fire or remove them from places and people when you aren’t there. You are way more limited as a parent when your child gains some independence.

you are also completely ignoring neurodiverse or other additional needs children or those with adverse experiences where things are way more complex.

I hope your plan works and your teenagers have no issues but I highly doubt many people get through the teen years unscathed.

One of the biggest things is the loss of youth services & youth clubs to keep kids off the streets. When I was a teenager I went to the youth club on my school campus, it was open 5 nights a week & during the day for the unemployed. It was packed every night, we had a disco, coffee bar, games room & a workshop. There were so many kids who were in danger of going off the rails who were helped by the youth workers, they helped them look for jobs if they had left school, went to court with some whose parents couldn't be bothered & spoke up for them, supported teenage mums. It was somewhere to go where it was safe, there was always someone there who would listen if you had a problem, I dread to think of what would have happened if the club hadn't been there, I have fantastic memories of the years I went there, I made lifelong friends that without the club I wouldn't have made.

One day you may have to eat your words, OP. You don't know what your kids will be up to when they are teenagers. You also obviously don't know that you won't have full control over what your children do, unless you plan to be with them 24/7?

Mine are all grown and I haven't had any of the problems you mention. I was a well behaved teen, because I was that way inclined naturally. My sibling on the other hand, the things they got up to, and my parents had no idea because they were 'safely at a friends', except they weren't.

Consequences for the teenager, not the parents.

I also think that if you are selling alcohol, it is your job to ensure that the people you are selling to are of age. If you neglect that duty, then you are liable for a fine.

In the UK, parents are legally prohibited from disciplining their children, so it's a ridiculous proposition that the parents should be held accou table for their children's behaviour. It's no different than saying teachers are responsible for their pupils behaviour.

All teenagers are experts on social media, they know their rights and they are fully aware that they can disregard their parents and teachers "rules" without consequence.

A single malicious complaint from a pissed of pupil will end your teaching career. Nobody, not your head teacher, colleagues, or parents will back you.

If you're child decides they don't want to listen to you, there's nothing you can do, you can't physically touch them, lock them indoors, they can behave however they like, and nobody, not the police, social services, will support you, prosecute you, report you, fine you, yes. But there won't be any support.

So if parents can't disciplin their children, if teachers can't disciplining their pupils, what on earth makes you think holding parents responsible for children's behaviour is going change anything.

Not even the police can do it anymore. Just yesterday in the papers there was a story about a police officer who was fired for arresting a child who was in possession of a ferocious looking double bladed knife. The officer swore at the armed child during the arrest and lost his job as as a result. Also, another child murdered a pensioner, literally beat them to death, the sentence? Out in three years, and another kid who filmed the murder but did nothing to help the victim? Well they must have a counselling session once a month to discuss how naughty they have been. So there's your proof.

The reality is that children can do what they like and nobody can stop them. Apparently we have all decided that's what's best for them.

Some kids and teens will always be little shits and they have been like that for centuries, it's not a new phenomenon.

The majority of your post is about teenagers, of which you have none yet, I have 2. There are a small minority of teenagers that lash out and misbehave and they are usually in pain themselves, I was one. Often the parents are to blame for not parenting a teen well. Most naughty teens grow up to become upstanding citizens.

My parents were extremely strict like you, I very nearly got arrested a couple of times in my teens. It's not always the discipline that creates the well behaved child.

In the UK, parents are legally prohibited from disciplining their children, so it's a ridiculous proposition that the parents should be held accou table for their children's behaviour

In Scotland, Wales and Ireland it’s illegal to hit your children. In England you can still legally hit your kids for now. If by discipline you mean use violence then it was never discipline in the first place - and if that’s the only form of “discipline” you have in your tool kit, or the only thing you think is effective, there’s something badly wrong with you.

I am referring to literally anything. You simply cannot legally do anything to your children, one complaint from them and you will back down. The consequences for adults when facing any allegation from a child for anything are catastrophic. Children know this. You can't even lock a door to stop them walking out of your house.

For example, if your 14 year old decides they want to stay out all night, there's nothing you can do. If you report them as missing to the police all that will happen is the officers will bring them back home if they ever find them, but there is literally nothing you can do to stop them walking straight out the door again.

So, as I said, you are quite literally legally prohibited from disciplining or controlling your children.

Well said. No one mentioned using violence as a punishment as a way of solving the problem before the poster you quoted. The fact that they consider punishment to be smacking etc, says a lot about them. Golly, I tried to suggest some practical solutions to make life better for other members of society and OTHER CHILDREN who may be affected by some little low-life's behaviour and we get tales of giving children bleach and smacking.

For clarity, it is NOT illegal to discipline your child in England or any country for that matter. Discipline takes place in orthodox family homes, orphanages and in the class room. Detention is a form of discipline, sanctions are a form of discipline, cancelling your child's Netflix subscription for bad behaviour is a form of discipline. Discipline doesn't mean giving them a good hiding.

But @BigFatBully when you are given a licence to sell goods that comes with responsibility and all you have to do is make sure that you don’t sell it to the under 18s.

How you do it is personal choice if you want to id everyone else that is on you you don’t actually need to.

and yes some places take to a silly degree. In Disney World for example I would at well over 21 and look it two types of id to have a drink because my non US passport isn’t sufficient. So would my mother need to show her passport and her driving licence

maybe we should look at why we feel the need to implement the rules in such a way rather than teenagers are bad.

because the vast majority I have come across are perfectly lovely albeit very stressed with exams

and given my parenting ethic is all about preparing DD for adulthood by giving her increased responsibility for her choices and what she does making me responsible for anything she does is a complete backward step in her journey to adulthood

The balance of responsibility to protect children (which is what things like alcohol laws focusing on retailers is about) is split between parents AND society, which is as it should be.

The balance of responsibility for children's behaviour also shifts as they grow from being on the parents/adults in charge to the child/young person themselves. Which again, I think makes perfect sense. It doesn't make sense to put a two year old in court for something that happened as a result of a lapse in adult attention or insufficient supervision, but for a 13yo maybe it is appropriate depending on the seriousness of the crime, and for a 16yo they are close to being an adult. But it's also important to take development into account and it helps nobody to be overly punitive towards mistakes made when someone is young - the focus should be on rehabilitation (as it should be at any age, but my assumption, which could be wrong, is that the younger the person, the easier it is to help them turn things around.)

I don't think there is a problem with the laws and regulations in the UK but there is a massive lack of support for families struggling to manage their child's behaviour, whether that's due to medical conditions including neurodivergence, trauma, family situation or any other reason.

I also think there is a narrative that "children are much worse today" which I don't believe is entirely true. Cultural norms change, and what is considered appropriate vs respectful may change (I would not expect today's children to stand up when an adult enters the room, but that was expected in the past), some of this is the effect that has always been there where people who have always been law-abiding types compare their memories of their own childhoods which they probably spent in the company of other law-abiding types, being sheltered (correctly) by their parents away from too much experience of children/teens behaving in unsafe or inappropriate ways, as adults begin to witness this behaviour for the first time and are shocked by it because in their experience it "never happened" when they were a child. It did, you just didn't see it if your parents protected you from it, as they should do. I believe these two effects account for a LOT of "children are so terrible today".

And then there is a behaviour crisis in schools, so clearly something has changed. I think that's less of a fundamental change in children OR parents, but more tipped towards a circular effect within the school environment (stressed, undersupported, underpaid teachers > less control of kids > more stressed teachers > more stressed out kids > general chaos in learning environment > more stress for everyone, etc) plus a shift in the number of children with SEND and SEMH needs being placed/kept in mainstream compared with the past, plus, again, insufficient support for children/families who are struggling because of overloaded social and health care systems.

There was an experiment on rats where they gave them drug water and regular water. The rats would choose the drug water and die from it. Then they introduced other things to do in the cage, and the rats chose to avoid the drug water.
I learned that if someone wants to drink alcohol, or has any other addiction, it’s part of a bigger problem

MANY places take it to a silly degree. The 40+ year old woman who was asked for ID to buy a pair of tweezers is a fine example of that. Organisations such as the "Challenge 25" scheme put pressure on businesses to challenge people that look OVER 18 years but under 25 years, and there is a huge difference in appearance between a 17 year old and a 25 year old. There have even been situations where parents have been in supermarkets with toddlers in strollers and been refused the sale of a bottle of wine for them and their DH to enjoy later because their toddler doesn't have ID. There was also the case of Sainsbury's refusing to deliver groceries to a 37 year old man, who looked very much 37, and had no age restricted products in his order, because he didn't have a passport on him. Instead of wasting time trying to stop adults buy alcohol, pushing the burden of prevention on to the parents, who are you know...legally responsible for their child, would be a more direct and effective approach.

I could sort of understand the guidance of asking anyone who is under 21 to prove their age. People such as Ariana Grande looked around 17 when they were actually 20 but I don't in a month of Sundays believe that a 24 or 25 year old can look like a child, not unless they have some sort of developmental disorder.

In my experience of observing my peers when I was that age, most underage drinking comes from theft from the family home, e.g. robbing their father's Scotch collection. Occasionally, I've heard of children stealing from shops and bypassing the checkout all together, so whilst the sales agent is busy checking that a 25 year old isn't a child and can have a bottle of wine after a long day at work, some 15 year old could be out the door with several litres of vodka.

I was in a shop the other day and overheard the checkout clerk telling another customer that their company policy is to ask anyone who could be under 25 for identification for a flipping CHEESE GRATER....the same cheese grater that children will use in home economics... it doesn't make sense to me.

But ridiculous. Parents can’t be with their dc 24:7 so there is no way they could prevent them attempting to buy alcohol.

to sell alcohol you need a license. That means you have a responsibility to buy sell to underage people. I think you are being daft.

I think you are being daft. Not being able to be with a teenager 24/7 doesn't mean giving them free reign to do whatever they like. My husband and I both work, and when we can't be there with our children, we have an au pair who upholds the rules and values that we ourselves instil. When children get older, there are things such as after-school clubs, hockey clubs, brownies etc and it can be arranged for a child minder to take them there from school and the parents collect them from there later after finishing work. There are so many evil people out there, why would you want your children to be roaming the streets at night anyway? There are gated venues such as theme parks, which don't serve age restricted products where teenagers can have a sense of freedom. If the parents of these children who go out trying to get alcohol were doing their job effectively, then shop keepers wouldn't need to ask a woman in her 40s for ID for a pair of tweezers. Speaking as a parent, society lets parents neglect their duties far too much, it always seems to be someone else's responsibility, such as the responsibility of the employer to pay for staff childcare, the responsibility of the state to pay for children whose dead beat fathers or mothers cannot provide for their offspring. The shuffling of responsibilities leads to a break down in control. At the end of the day, the people who are most responsible for a child are their mother and father.

Yes and I agree but that is a issue with how the guidance is done and doesn’t solve the issue of underage drinking at all.

there are always the odd shop willing to sell. We had fake ids in the 90s and no one ever stole anything

I've heard snippets of hearsay about children using fake IDs these days. Which effectively means IDs aren't a failsafe way of preventing children from accessing cigarettes and alcohol, which again means parents need to take more care over their children's actions. If a sales agent sees ID that looks genuine, and there are all sorts of photoshop tools out there that could make a fake one look real, then they are likely to accept it. It's a box ticking exercise, nothing more.

At the end of the day, the people who are most responsible for a child are their mother and father.

Or the au pair.