babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Parenting/Child Rearing in the New Millennium

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Parenting/Child Rearing in the New Millennium
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 11 February 2002 10:31 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is my belief that one of the current crisis children are faced with today reflects on their parents' inabilty to raise them properly.

Today, more children are raised into poverty, revert to crime, are sexually promiscuous, drug and alcohol abusers, violent, obese, and most likely to repeat those same mistakes their parents did with them.

For children who have been referred to child services, should we go as far as the UK where, in 1989, The Children Act set a standard of care for children that "it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give"? I'll eloborate; this perspective was implemented where records that were kept for each child. They recorded in minute detail everything from the amount of soda drinks and chips that was consumed each week to what are the important rules in the home. They also set out what changes are necessary and who is responsible for carrying them out.

Should it be clearly spelled out to society and our youth as part of their sex education curriculum that there will be reduced benefits, more restrictions and the earlier model in the UK implemented here in Canada?

Your thoughts.

John I. Fleming

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 12 February 2002 01:12 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about a link to the UK study you speak of? We can't comment on things we know nothing about or can't follow up on.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 12 February 2002 04:13 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Will John answer the following:

Are you a parent?
If yes, how many children, and what age(s)?


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 12 February 2002 04:41 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Revert to crime? Were they criminal toddlers?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 12 February 2002 04:53 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was, but I looked so cute in the black and white convict costume I got away with moider.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 12 February 2002 07:52 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any closer to finding a link to that study, John?

Or any other related links?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 12 February 2002 10:02 PM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where did I say there was a study on the UK's Children Act of 1989 or that I was even referring to a study?

Let's try this one more time. "For children who have been referred to child services, should we go as far as the UK where, in 1989, The Children Act set a standard of care for children that "it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give"?

In the Act, under section 3.(5)subsection(b) with the sub-heading "Meaning of "parental responsibility." It says;

quote:
A person who - may (subject to the provisions of this Act) do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare.

PART I: Welfare of the child.

Where did I get the IDEA of referring to this setion of The Children Act of the UK? I read an article on bad parenting located here.

I am quite sure there will be many of you who will champion the conclusions of the paper considering it absolves the parent or care giver from any responsibility. Their conclusion was that; "Parents, care workers and child care professionals might benefit from stepping back and examining the current state of affairs more critically and less defensively."

As for me having children; yes I do. Why?

John I. Fleming

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 12 February 2002 10:15 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Parents, care workers and child care professionals might benefit
from stepping back and examining the current state of affairs more critically and less
defensively."

Absolutely- you have to know what's going on before you "treat" it, or what-have-you. You talk of this as though knowing what you're doing is a bad thing ...

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 12 February 2002 10:31 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Paradoxically, this apparently child centred approach to care has been accompanied by greater levels of control being exerted over children by other state agencies. The more parents and carers are undermined and the more 'bad' parenting is blamed for juvenile delinquency the stronger becomes the perception that children are out of control - and the greater the inducement to politicians and the police to step in. The child safety initiative in Hamilton is a current example, where an official curfew has been placed on young people. Here parental authority has been replaced by militaristic containment. This benefits nobody and serves to constrain children's scope to socialise and develop independence.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca