Family life is in 'meltdown': Judge launches devastating attack on our fractured society

[ScienceTeacher]

click

and I don't beleive that being poor has anything to do with it. It's more about the "I want it, I want it now, and I'm going to get it anyway I can" attitude.

Had an epiphany the other day, dropping ds at nursery (not easy transition at the moment) about what a sad reflection on our society this is.

I earn more money than HER, so I pay her to look after my babies...can she do it as well as I can when she looks after 3 babies? Can she understand my son when she isn't his mother and doesn't live with him? Does this help him to develop into a better human being? Is she as bothered about his welfare as I am, or is she thinking about paying her own mortgage and when her next day off is? - I know they're lovely careers, but...I'm getting less sure that raising children in the institutionalised manner that many children experience is such a good thing. IMO this isn't helping our fractured society. BUT that's just my opinion AND I BELIEVE IN FREE CHOICE.

Before I get lynched - I agree that every woman should get to choose whether or not she works and that FATHERS are just as capable of nurturing children...but IMHO many couples don't get to choose whether or not one stays at home with the kids as mortgages are so expensive.

Agree that it's not down to SINGLE parents, but the QUALITY of parenting. Single parents are single parents for a whole variety of reasons - death, divorce, disappointment, change in circumstances, carelessness etc etc so it's difficult to lump them all together, circumstances will vary.

Quality can IMO make a massive difference and that quality is often about being IMO bothered enough to know what your kids are doing (as far as possible), where they are, being honest with your children about when things ARE their fault, so they can take responsibility for their actions AND successes and not thinking your kids are above the law and the system, be it at school or the wider world, and not always giving them what they want, as it gives false expectations about what the rest of their life will be like.

But how can we (as a society) ensure a quality of parenting is delivered to our children?

Don't think singling out single parents is the answer - they're not victims, they are capable individual human beings (generally) who should be expected to achieve within society and contribute to society - I always feel so disappointed for the typically showcased single mums who are offered up by the media as impoverished victims of the inadequate system...it used to make me feel so embarrassed when I was a single mum that people took this view of me, the ahhhh, poor single mum...victim of societies inability to give her more money for free....

Give them ASPIRATIONS...

Yes Joash "I want it, I want it now, and I'm going to get it anyway I can" is a large part of the problem. That together with our lack of community/sense of accountability. Those two factors are the main cause of society's problems.

The third factor is definitely poverty though, as there are well-meaning parents whose children go off the rails and it is harder for the ones without money to pull their children back on to a sensible path for their future.

Wealthy parent(s) can to a certain pre-empt trouble or exercise damage limitation by taking various measures that all cost MONEY. Change of school, good lawyer! private re-hab, a total change of scenery..... Extra maths lessons etc etc.

Absolutely bp99.

It's thinly veiled but I really don't think the judge it talking here about children who have been put in nursery while their parents work.

I think he is pretty clearly talking about single parents on benefits. Hey ho! I'm not sure that judges are really the best people to comment on RL! They are often rather detatched from it, imvho

Just to show that I am not biased against poor or single monthers...

One of the things that I observe in the tiny world that I inhabit is that many, many parents think that their little darling is so wonderful and can see no wrong in them, and they expect that the rest of us will feel the same way about their child.

They think it is funny and cute when their child runs around during a church service, or has to eat unpaid-for food in a supermarket, etc, and that we should all feel this to be equally cute.

These kids can do no wrong. While it may seem cute for a toddler, it is not cute when they are older. There is no change as these kids become teens. You give them a lunchtime detention for lack of homework and the child is straight on their illicit mobile to dad (usually the parent with the special little finger), and dad will insist their child is in the right. What message does this give the child. They do as they please, and daddy will always bail them out?

The other big problem for well off kids, is that when their parents split, there is often oodles of money from each of them to win their child's love over the other parent. Material goods often mean nothing to them, as it's a case of easy-come, easy-go. They generally have no remorse if they (accidentally) damage someone else's stuff. Sorry, huge generalisation here, and hopefully most families manage divorce really well, but it's only every a few bad apples that spoil the crop.

I agree people don't seem to see how important it is.I am always amazed when people talk of the sacrifices they've made and things they've given up for their kids!It is a privilege not a sacrifice and is the hardest but most rewarding job ever.When you have kids you should put them first no matter what

ScienceTeacher I totally agree with your comment " ... One of the things that I observe in the tiny world that I inhabit is that many, many parents think that their little darling is so wonderful and can see no wrong in them, and they expect that the rest of us will feel the same way about their child ..." I know plenty of people who are that way.

And, although I do agree with some of what you said about "...well off kids..." I really don't think that it is about having money, I have had enough clients who are on benefits who give their children whatever they want (through whatever means necessary), whose children are exactly the same - "easy come - easy go".

I don't mean that everyone on benefits behaves like this - just trying to say that these attitudes are across the board, and don't just come from having money.

I always remember a particular client many years ago when I was practising family law. She was on benefits and had been forever. She had 5 children and each child had its own television and stereo system in their bedrooms. This was in the age before the universal computer or I suspect they'd have had one of those too.

I had no idea how she managed to afford these things - and they were all expensive makes. I certainly couldn't afford to buy all those things. But her attitude was "if my kid wants something, then they get it", which I doubt was very helpful as they got older and had to manage for themselves.

ST, I've read two of your responses/threads on MN now and I can't say I've enjoyed them.

This is such tosh. I'd ask, before you and others accept such ridiculous nonsense from this judge and the DM, that you go and have a look at the actual evidence on family structure, social change, family finances and so on before you accept such judgements.

Presumably if you are a science teacher, you have a university education. University education ought to encourage you to assess evidence and argument. If you can't do this, you can't have had a very good one.

Slightly worryingly I agree with Xenia

Many of these problems have been around for a long time. Many things that used to be swept under the carpet are now out there and sometimes the consequences of this are that there are more single people (usually mothers) bringing up children.

BTW I totally disagree with what science teacher said about unmarried others and adopting. Some adoptive families were good but many adoptees have spent time in therapy to overcome their experiences. There is no evidence to suggest that these adopters were better parents than the mothers who were encouraged to give up there children would have been. In fact there is some to the contrary to say that damage is often done. I'm not anti adoption in the right circumstances, I just don't think the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's showed us that it was a better situation than supporting an unmarried mother to raise her own child.

Cheers, monkey.

Some good points imo bb99

Sorry ST, got a bit carried away and personal but I do get cross at this kind of report and the rash of 'oh yes how terrible' it engenders.

The reality is that people are more 'partnered', if not actually married now than they ever have been. The number of children living in single-parent families is quite small. The real growth in single adult living is among older age groups.

The single biggest factor in determining the lives of single parent families (usually mothers of course since they are the ones who mostly do stay to look after the kids, yet they still get blamed: WTF?) is their financial situation. And while I don't disagree at all with the poster who said don't label SPFs and give them aspirations, unfortunately divorce and separation is likely to lead to a massive decline in financial resources. And for women who don't already have a job and education, they are immediately thrown into a poverty trap: they can't earn enough money to pay childcare.

The other thing I hate about that kind of attitude is the individualisation of responsibility: what happened to the 'it takes a village to raise a child' ethic? Instead of criticising struggling parents, give em a hand, FGS.

"University education ought to encourage you to assess evidence and argument. If you can't do this, you can't have had a very good one."

Monkeytrouser, and with the benefit of yours, you attack a poster rather than their points and singularly fail to support your own arguments or address theirs.

Although not the single cause, I think the absence of fathers (rather than SPF since most I know co-parent) is important, as I said before, as boys need a male role- model on how to be a man.

Girls need a father just as much.

I agree with Xenia in that more help for people contemplating divorce is no bad thing.

I know now, in my home state of Texas, that all couples petitioning for divorce who have children must undergo mandatory family counselling, including the children.

Custody and financial/maintenance agreements MUST be sorted in writing before your divorce can be made final in many states, including Colorado.

But FWIW, I think Mr Justice Coleridge is right for the most part.

I think that in addition to teh breakdown of the family, and maybe in part because of it, there is a blatant lack of personal and social responsibility in this society that is hugely detrimental to it, and a VERY great threat to it.

But if you take the attitude that "it takes a village to raise a child", don't you absolve the individual of their responsibility. After all, they can then say "it's not my fault; it's society's", when in fact it is their fault.

Yes there should be more help out there to help those who are truly struggling to cope, but, in a way, the welfare system is also partly to blame here. There are a lot of people who feel that they don't have to take personal responsibility for their lives because the state will provide a cushion. The welfare system was originally designed to protect the most vulnerable and needy, not as a means to avoid having to take responsibility for yourself and your lifestyle decisions.

The welfare state should be there for people who fall on hard times due to reasonably unforeseen circumstances.

Sleeping around and getting pregnant should not be one of these. We need to discourage this kind of reckless behaviour, not encourage it. When I was growing up, teenage pregnancies were the most shameful thing that could befall a family - I don't understand why it has become acceptable in such a short amount of time.

I actually get quite horrified when reading some of the Teenager threads here on Mumsnet, where it seems to be accepted that teenagers will have sex and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Well, not in my household. We are humans, not animals.

I think it goes beyond the welfare system or financial circumstance.

I mean, look at the Julia Hollanders of this world, 'Oh, dear! I simply cannot accept that someone as well-educated and bourgeois as I am could give birth to a disabled child who has disrupted my idea of what my life should be. Oh, god, no, this is NOT for me, because I have no sense of personal responsibility at all. So, here, taxpayer, pay for the upkeep of my child from 5 months even though I could well afford to hire help, because hey, I'm entitled.'

Or MPs having the taxpayer pay their TV license and food bills and for their wives to make taxi journeys.

'Oh, poor thing. They cocked up. Let's reward them, give them a second chance for it.' Yeah, that's a great lesson to put out there!

It's gotten endemic in all strata of society now. It's me, me, me and take, take, take first.

And when that's applauded or not condemned or seen as being clever, that society has some pretty big problems.

I say, fine, sleep around. But don't expect someone else to pay for your irresponsibility with regards to birth control.

I'm not monkeytrouser BTW, upwind.

I didn't want to get drawn in initially but then apologised for being personal. I see ST has continued in the same vein nevertheless. I really can't be arsed arguing with someone who believes 'we're humans, no animals'.

I don't know about the politics of it but I like the comment by Anita someone, underneath, about having children's friends at your house and letting them hang around there so you know they are safe. I will keep that in mind as my two grow older. It makes loads of sense.

Fine, MB, but at least I am clear on my values, something that trumps government.