Benign neglect as a parenting style under threat

[OrmIrian]

I am the arch-benign neglecter. I say yes to most things my DC want to do. I don't fret about anything they do. I assume the best not the worst. I don't make my DC wear a helmet when cycling. They don't have a net on the trampoline. I let them play in the park unsupervised.

And as far as I am concerned that is the best way to parent my children. So far they are doing very well.
And it is my business.

But it would seem not from the link above (not the only recent example of this). I could have been 'done' for that yesterday as I did almost exactly the same thing as she did.

Anyone else begin to feel beleagured? I am glad I am not having any more TBH.

Benign neglect doesn't mean you ignore their health and safety! Quite the opposite. I've always understood benign neglect to be a loving, caring parent but one that does not intervene in a child's leisure time. I never, ever 'play' or 'organise' my children but I certainly wouldn't let them come to harm by neglecting to tell them to put on a cycle helmet or a trampoline net etc..

Please please do not start re-interpreting 'benign neglect' as just 'neglect' or all of us benign neglecters will start being sent to the ducking stools....

But you are therefore assuming that my treatment children is down to neglect rather my own assessment of the risk involved . Thanks.

Not at all Orm - you do what you like - but don't start redefining the term in your own image. I'm an 'arch-benign neglecter' myself and will defend to the death the right for my kids to be totally and utterly bored over the summer holidays without organising every single second for them... but I could equally be called a 'cotton wool' mother because I am hyper about health and safety. If that is covered, it is a lot easier to let kids do as they please...hence: 'benign neglect'.

I've done a bit of digging and there is very little information as to exactly what happened. But the 9 year old was the eldest of 4 children who were left in the park. Some of those children were therefore likely to be quite young to be 'supervised' by a 9 year old (unless they were 8 year old triplets!)

There is no information about how long she left them for, but if she did leave them for more than a couple of minutes, then I would argue that this case is more like straightforward neglect than benign neglect.

I hadn't seen that BBC piece, but I'd read about 'benign neglect' in the paper this weekend and was quite pleased that there was an 'official' term for my parenting style. Can't find the article online though.

The next stage of benign neglect is 'making the children work'. So far I've talked them through cooking quite a lot of things, walking the dog, bringing in washing, while I sit here with my tea.

Life skills, innit.

The next stage of benign neglect is 'making the children work'. So far I've talked them through cooking quite a lot of things, walking the dog, bringing in washing, while I sit here with my tea.

Life skills, innit.

Yes indeed abraid. Pretty poor upbringing if they can't make their parents a cuppa in the morning look after themselves.

Agree with nigglewiggle.

I like my children to have as much (safe) independence as possible, and I am happy for my 8 and 10 year old to go and visit local friends, go for a cycle ride or stay at home without adult supervision for relatively short periods of time (maybe an hour or so).

But I hate these misleading stories that give absolutely no background at all, and I think that if there was more to the story than I left my nine year old in the park for 5mins (as it was presented) then the Liberty rep was very foolish in just accepting that there was no cause for concern.

Maybe the police were just wandering by and saw children alone (this would imply no adults were around, as the assumption would have been that someone was keeping an eye) and immediately made a report. Or maybe someone rang the police on seeing four children the eldest of whom was nine (so assuming no twins the youngest might have been five) alone for a considerable period of time - and then the time for the police to arrive on top of that, which is not usually a couple of minutes is it, although of course it might have been.

Even then she would have been given a caution probably, so nothing that would affect her life or parenting choices. CRBs are intrusive, no doubt about it (I have had a few myself) but as a parent would you not want to be reassured that your Sunday school teacher was likely to make sensible choices, and that if they had been foolish in the past a discussion would have taken place before employment? It is a tricky balance, we are probably on the risk averse side of things presently, but I am not sure that this is the outrageous case it is presented as.

Oh ad PortandLemon, thanks for the link I am a risk manager, and agree people are very poor at making sensible choices about risk, but nice to have the scientific side to add to the evidential side

"Thanks to our confirmation bias, in which we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe and ignore or discount contradictory evidence, we will remember only those few astonishing coincidences and forget the vast sea of meaningless data."

So true. On both sides of any argument.

I would still love to know how the mother in the article was brought to the attention of the police, by whom and why she wasn't informed. I think that was the thrust of the Liberty concern - and a valid one IMO.

But even if the police just happened to pass how would they know who the children belonged to and how come she didn't find out about it. It just seems odd.

I aspire to benign neglect, which I trust includes allowing kids to have time to be bored. Maybe we should draw up a list to swear a pledge to...

I think we would have too many spats and splinter groups smee

Ah but that's half the fun...

oh what a juxtaposition of police advice! CONSIDER THIS a few years ago - i think my son was about 10 or something - he was playing football on the street - some miserable git phoned the police and the PCSOs were sent round.

they told all the children that they shouldn't play in the street - a cul=de-sack.

it was an issue about peoples property - cars - none of which has been damaged.

they then told them to play in the park.

"i'm not allowed to go to the park on my own" my son told the police officer - as the park was across two main roads.

i was v. proud that my son stood up for what he felt was right that day.

its all fucked up - consider this - we build parks near homes - the police get complaints - hotspots for asb - gathering place for teens - piss stinking play equipment and broken glass everywhere.

everyone - well alomost - objects to a play area near them becuase these problems are well known.

we come across this dilema weekly at my place of work.

yet kids play outside their own homes not causing a nuisance and they are told to go to a park - on their own.

now - you get a black mark on your crb is you leave them on their own.

i mean who knows the geography of this case - the park could have been across the road from the shop

who reports a 9 year old for being in a sodding park anyway?

are we really meant to accompany 9 year olds to the park?

lord above.

i am glad that there is a title for this style of parenting - i would say that i do mostly follow this not giving much of a shit type parenting.

its so much better than being fraught over a froot shoot, a bike helmet - whatever

my son was climbing some serious trees at that age

in fact - i could have been prosecuted many many times over - for many things

my kids sometimes walking to school ont heir own at that age. - school wasn't that far - but perhaps distance isn't the point.

what a pile of poo

i also think that this is part of a wider conspiricy to keep people in check.

wow rant applause to custardo Though I don't think it as 'not giving much of a shit type parenting', I prefer to think of it as inspired, or enlightened. Or any other you-are-such-a-fab-mum adjectives to cheer me up on a grumpy Tuesday..

custy - the first few paragraphs of that post could have been written by me a few years back. Same situation, same issue, same miserable gits

pmsl ty.

i dont have my mum to thank for a lot- but what i do have - she was a gem.

one of those gems was rolling her eyes and being exasperated at my new mumness - weeping at my really rubbish parenting.

instead of cuddles and hair stroking she said something like " ofgs custy, babies are resiliant, children are resiliant YOU WONT KILL THEM"

It grew from there.

I used to be a police officer (few years ago now tho') and the most common call out was 'kids playing football', usually by miserable old gits who didn't want their cars damaged or didn't like the noise.
Compare this to the lack of calls when someone was found to have carried his (dead) wife's body wrapped in a carpet (feet sticking out the bottom apparently) and dumped it in a park.

bogwobbit - that is sad. I have come to the conclusion that for many people the default setting is apathy, occassionally disrupted by bouts of activity prompted by threats to their own well-being. Not for everyone I am glad to say.

Yes, it was sad. We used to (half) joke about it, saying it was no wonder Scotland didn't have a decdent national football team .

We built a village playgroundacross the road from our housewith another family. It has wide use from different social groups. We have had little trouble, but that's probably because everyone knows everyone and if someone's children are out of order, a word will be had. The older children are good at keeping the younger ones in hand.

A lot of old people in the village supported us. Equally many predicted that the playground would bring terrible drug and drink problems to the village. It didn't.