It's Still Not Easy To Be Different/Good People Help Out

[mmhmm]

I answered your query, captain, based on what information you provided.  With the new information given in your Reply #207, we have a different case.  It sounds like the problem is of long standing.  The parents failed this boy quite a ways back, obviously.  If they were excusing his aberrant behaviors and not expecting him to pay the cost of his actions/choices, that's their cross to bear.  As a parent, I'd have to look just as closely at my contribution to the disaster that has befallen this family as at the contribution of the son.  It may be too late for this boy, or it may not be.  Hard to say without professional input; however, one doesn't have to sacrifice one child for another.  There are alternatives that do not involve disowning one's child. It might involve hospitalization, or some other method of keeping the abused child away from the abuser.  The abuser does not have to be allowed to live in the home.  He doesn't have to be disowned, either, IMO.

[The Captain]

Nov 13, 2013 9:09:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 13, 2013 9:00:54 GMT -5 The Captain said:

In the particular (not hypothetical) situation I described the son was, simply put, a very bad apple. I guess nowadays he would be classified as a narcissist/sociopath but back in the day they apparently did not ascribe that to younger people.

The family has disowned him (after 13 more years of hell - everything from stealing, drug use, dealing drugs, identity theft etc).  He should have been charged and put in jail, but excuses were made for him for way too long. Almost 20 years later he still tries to worm his way back into their lives and manipulate them. 

Not directed at you personally, but I will never understand why some parents are willing to sacrifice the safety/stability of one child (or children) for the sake of another. 

If you hypothetical is now an actual sitution (older teen sibling impregnates younger teen sibling) what was your reason for not providing the other posters all the information (identity theft,, stealing, drug use and dealing (any more?).   Withholding information is rather unethical.

The other stuff I mentioned happened as the person was an adult (18 and older in my book). We were discussing throwing a child out.  Yes there was other behavior (running away, destroying property, vandalism) that started when the boy was around 14 that to me would not be a reason to throw the kid out.  I focused on the example of having to choose the safety of one child over another as what I saw as a legitimate reason to throw a child out. 

As far as withholding information being unethical - I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.  To my mind it was not relevant as far as the safety was concerned, but only provided to show how (at least in my perception) some people are wired for evil regardless of how they are raised in response to mmhmm's comment.  Not everything can be attributed to the parent's relationship with the child IMHO.

[mmhmm]

I'd say the behavior of the kid in your example can, very possibly, be attributed to the parental relationship.  If he was acting out as a young teen and nothing was done, excuses were made, and the behaviors were not met with very strong reaction, the parents definitely had a part in the end result, IMO.

[The Captain]

Nov 13, 2013 9:09:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I answered your query, captain, based on what information you provided.  With the new information given in your Reply #207, we have a different case.  It sounds like the problem is of long standing.  The parents failed this boy quite a ways back, obviously.  If they were excusing his aberrant behaviors and not expecting him to pay the cost of his actions/choices, that's their cross to bear.  As a parent, I'd have to look just as closely at my contribution to the disaster that has befallen this family as at the contribution of the son.  It may be too late for this boy, or it may not be.  Hard to say without professional input; however, one doesn't have to sacrifice one child for another.  There are alternatives that do not involve disowning one's child. It might involve hospitalization, or some other method of keeping the abused child away from the abuser.  The abuser does not have to be allowed to live in the home.  He doesn't have to be disowned, either, IMO.

Why does it always have to be the parents that somehow fail the child?  How many times do we have posters on here that state no matter what they did their child (fill in the blank, failed school, got pregnant, etc.)?

Is every parent who has a child who dropped out of school, engaged in underage drinking, sex drugs, etc. somehow because the parent, and the parent alone, failed their child?

In many cases parents have to fail one child to support another - is it right?

At the time the boy (he's close to 50 now) was 17 the worst the parents knew about was running away, slashing tires, and spray painting public schools.  Not exactly angelic behavior but nothing that would make you think someone else may be at risk. Hindsight is always 20/20 but if only one child out of several, from the same environment, turns out "bad" how can it be attributed to the parents?

[The Captain]

Nov 13, 2013 9:42:29 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd say the behavior of the kid in your example can, very possibly, be attributed to the parental relationship.  If he was acting out as a young teen and nothing was done, excuses were made, and the behaviors were not met with very strong reaction, the parents definitely had a part in the end result, IMO.

Well I can't say I know for certain everything the parents attempted to do to modify the behaviour.  He was the only one out of four that ever gave them any trouble (that I know of). 

Grounding didn't work - that's why he would run away.  I don't know what else they tried. 

[mmhmm]

I don't recall saying anything about something that "always" has to be, captain.  I said, in this case I believe the parents share the culpability for the end result.

In your Reply #211, you said the trouble was evident at the age of 14.  In your Reply #213, you indicate there was little to go by at age 17.  Which is it?

If my child, as a teen, had been found to be destroying the property of others and running away, something major would have been done then.  Help would have been sought.  If the boy was found guilty of destruction of property, I would have engaged law enforcement to help deal with the problem and my kid would have "taken his lickin'".  These parents, according to you, made excuses instead.

[thyme4change]

I had friends who had 2 daughters and a son.  The son was....troubled.  The three kids came from 2 different marriages, and there was both mental health issues as well as situational problems with the mother of the boy (and his full sister.)  As he grew up, his problems turned from problematic to violent.  It got to the point where one parent moved out with the daughters and the father and son stayed in the house - but the father slept behind a locked door (and he implied he many have had a weapon handy - but I'm not sure about that.)  The boy was 16 and it became an unmanageable situation.  They did something that I would do - but it wasn't "kick him out" - they found a live-in program that had experience with these types of situations.  The mom and the girls were able to move back home, and they lived much more peacefully with him not in the home.

If my child was any sort of problem that I could not handle and under 18, I would absolutely consider some kind of facility, but I would not turn them loose onto the street.  

[zibazinski]

That's if you can afford to. Going to bankrupt yourself and have nothing for the good children because of the bad seed? We need more interventions in the country. If we'd stop being the worlds police and stop pork programs, we could care for these children and others who aren't in the best of mental health.

[thyme4change]

The program this family chose was heavily subsidized with public funding.  The unfortunate part was the waiting list - which is why mom and the girls moved out for a time period.