If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
bad children = bad parents?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
again im still home watching GMTV. they have a discussion following the conviction of the mother of truanting daughters. the argument is that the mother deserved to go to jail because her children follow her example and if she was a good mother then they would go to school how far is this true?
0
Comments
I also believe good parents = good kids, although their will always be exception to the rules <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
CAPITALS DEVIL
However, I don't think removing the mother from the parent/child equation is going to help matters much.
It's almost like the mother, who has clearly been rather lax in disciplining her children, has been given a little parenting holiday. Now there's an even better example for her kids - a mother in jail.... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Sorry guys but it is <STRONG>your</STRONG> fault.
I really have no problem with this. By all accounts this woman has been given opportunities to affact the situation but has done nothing. Tough shit.
Funny how the kids were at school yesterday though...first time for months apparently...
BTW, I would question whether this woman is a <STRONG>parent</STRONG> or just the person who gave birth...
[ 14-05-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
How the hell was she supposed to MAKE her kids go to scholl anyway?
If a child gets pregnant because they feel it may add protection to the relationship. This is due to the reason that the parents have guided them to do this and it is entirely the parents fault. i think that certain things are the fault of the parents, but others are not. The woman whos children played truant was given many warnings and chances for help, advice and parenting classes but she refused all help, so therefore it is all her fault that she was unable to controll the children anyway.
Is that what they said on the phone in? *is confused* <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I don't know whether prison is the answer for this woman, but something needed to be done to sort out her family. I hope she sorts her act out before she ruins the lives of her children by letting them bum around rather than go to school.
Everything around a child is influencing it (and us) so how can you say it is just the parents?
When a set of parents choose to bring a child into thos world, it is their responsibilty, nobody eles's, they have control over that child.
Its a parents responsibilty to monitor what their children watch, they are ultimatley responsible for anything they learn from the tele, like wise what they read, play on and listen to.
If I child isn't going to school, it is the fault of the parents and nobody else's, if they are incapable of commanding sufficent control over their children, that they can't make them go to school they are very bad parents.
Er...not in this case.
Isn't that the point <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<STRONG>
Because a parent defines the morals and children don't start school when the are born - there is a <STRONG>very</STRONG> important gap.
Like I said, giving birth only make her their mother, it doesn't mean she is a "parent"...Who is the [supposed] responsible adult in this scenario?
I'm not referring to this particular case, I don't know the details, but I would imagine that most parents actually have very little control over what their children do. An increasing percentage of children are turning into rebels, who do not listen to their parents, or any authority figure. They will be more influenced by their friends and by what is percieved to be 'cool'. Unfortuantly, the worls is such that it is percieved to be cool to throw your life away by not getting an education.
How is a parent supposed to force their rebel child to school?
If I had started drugs my mum would have walked me to and from school and kept me in her sight 24-7. Im not saying this is the way but I have never disobeyed my parents probably because i respect them and know what would happen if i did. But there is no excuse for badly behaved children and it does make you wonder if a child is very naughty then it has to be the parents influence.
Children have to be giving at least a small amount of independence, IMHO, or they will not learn about the real world. If a child decides to miss a lot of school, then it is the child who should be punished for it.
Yes, children have to have some independence but attendance at school (for under 16's) is a legal obligation, and for good reason, I believe. Therefore it is not up to the child whether they attend school or not and if they do not then the parent must take the initiative and march them there if necessary.
As much as I am normally against trials where people are punished relatively hard to make examples of them, I think this was needed in this case as there are too many other parents who don't care about their child's education. Hopefully some of them will now think twice. I've just heard that the mother has been refused bail. Good.
I just hope that the two children involved don't start to take it all out on their poor teachers, now that they seem to be returning to school.
Needless to say, I went to school <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Yes you can. You cannot use "excessive" force.
<STRONG>
Why don't they respect her though? Could it be becasue they sense that no matter what they do, she will take no action?
Respect is taught or earned it isn't a natural trait.
</STRONG>
and what about school? remember the law now considers that you are old enough to make such decisions about attendance...
<STRONG> </STRONG>
I agree and no-one has suggested that chioldren aren't allowed independance, just that they are punished when they misbehave and that the parents are responsible for teaching them wrong from right.
If they don't then the parents should be held accountable for that.
This case (and our previous thread about removal of benefits) isn't about a single case of misbehaviour. It is about <STRONG>persistent</STRONG> law breaking and I'm sorry but when a child is under 16 they are still under the care of their parent/guardian.
Have you ever considered that the reason that juvenile crime has increased is <STRONG>becuase</STRONG> or the liberal attitudes which always seeks excuses instead of punishment? Since the late 50s and 60s parents have been less and less strict when it comes to bad behaviour - don't you believe that this is contributory to the general decline in moral standards?
Their mother, good or bad, is over. She messed up and I doubt she can do much now. Although I think she needs to be punished if she didn’t do all in her power to comply with the law, locking her up won’t improve the situation--it won’t improve her parenting skills, it won’t make a more responsible daughters. Forget about her. It’s time to focus on girls.
How will throwing the mother in jail teach the girls about responsibility or are they punishing the daughters as well?
I don't seek excuses, I seek punishment. But punishment for the people who commit the crime. The children.
I don't believe that physical force should be used on a child who is of the age to go to secondary school. It does no good. When it comes down to it, its up to the child. The parent should do their best to make their child go to school, but even if they drive them to school, what is to stop them leaving at the first instant. A teacher certainly can't use physical force of any kind.
With regards to the parent dishing out punishment in the form of groundings or removal of pocket-money/football/whatever... my parents didn't let me go clubbing until I was 18 on the grounds that I was too young. It didn't stop me, I went for a year without them knowing. True, they could have kept me in every night, but is that really a good way to bring up a child? To keep them from any social interaction other than school?
I would argue that the children aren't the only issue here though. There is parental responsibilty, enshrined in law, which enforces the ethic that children should be sent to school.
In this case (and others) the parent has chosen not to do so. Thereby committing a crime. Hence punishment.
What is the problem there?
<STRONG>
I entirely agree. I would add though that you shouldn't <STRONG>need</STRONG> to use physical force by this stage, if you have acted as a parent in the earlier stages of the child's life.
A preant can only do so much, and I am happy with those who <STRONG>do</STRONG> make the effort. However, there are people like this woman who just don't give a shit. If she doesn't take that parental responsibility seriously then the state should intervene.
<STRONG>
You seem to have taken me for a control freak <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> That's not the case. I know that my kids will mibehave, all children do. But the difference is taht I will punish them if they do, other parents don't. What lesson are they teaching their children?
It is those parents who we need to remind of what responsibilty is...
What is a myth? that there has been a decline in moral standards or that liberal attitudes have contributed?
Underage sex
Teenage pregnancy
Alcohol abuse by teenagers
Single-parent families
Drug abuse (hard & soft)
Sorry if it doesn't suit your ultra-PC ideals, but the truth hurts <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Likewise drinking and drug abuse have always been present and I would question the immorality of both these actions....
Is being a single-parent immoral? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'm not quite sure what high-moral plateau we are supposed to have come off?