Would you say something? UPDATE

[sweet2ndchance]

1 hour ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

100% of non abused children don't abuse other children.  

Parents should be aware of the possibility of abuse whenever their children are around others, and take precaution.  For example, I don't leave my kids alone with people they don't know well.  If this kid regularly acts out, and it sounds like this wasn't a one off incident, then he's not someone to leave the grandchildren with.  But that decision can be made, and children can be kept safe without violating his confidentiality.

 

I just can't agree with that first blanket statement.

Children whose parents refuse to discipline their child can have a child who bullies others. They are abusing others because they have never heard no or suffered consequences for their actions, not because they themselves were abused. You could argue the case that they were neglected by their parents but I don't think you could make abuse allegations stick on the parents.

Children who are not adequately supervised at home can mimic behavior they see on tv, in movies, in pop culture, in their friend circles, etc. They may bully or hurt other children without realizing it is not socially acceptable because they don't have an adult around to guide them often enough to make an impact. There are many reasons this could happen and again, you could possibly argue neglect in some cases but if it is a single parent doing the best they can just to keep up, would you still say that this child who has learned to bully by watching others unchecked is the result of abuse from their parents?

I just can't agree that 100% of children who aren't abused won't abuse other children. There are many ways that an abuser is cultivated. No one is immune and children should absolutely be supervised at all times, no matter how well you know the parents. Abuse happens more often between an abuser and victim that know each other than a stranger and a victim partially because it is so easy to become complacent around people you feel like you know well.

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

100% of non abused children don't abuse other children. 

 

Just checking - do you mean that "no children who were not abused will abuse other children" or "it is not the case that no children who were not abused will abuse other children"? To me the first is the intuitive reading, but then again, I've never liked the phrase "all that glitters is not gold" either.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Tanaqui

[Ottakee]

8 hours ago, MaBelle said:

 

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by Ottakee

[sweet2ndchance]

5 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

The logic I was responding to was that because a portion of sexually abused kids abuse others we should keep our kids away from sexually abused kids.  My point was that a portion of kids who weren’t abused also go on to abuse others, and so we need strategies for keeping safe that go beyond judging people based on their history.

 

4 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Yes, I meant the opposite of what I wrote.  

Ah I see. Yeah, that's not what I got out of your OP and I even ran it by DH before I wrote my post to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting something and he said he thought the same thing lol.

It sounds like we agree though, at least fundamentally. ;-)

[Farrar]

I find it unbearably illogical and cruel that despite the fact that the risk factors of a child who was abused are barely higher, people still feel they're right to openly stigmatize this child.

The risk factor of encountering an abuser is higher if it's a boy than a girl. Dramatically. You know, just any boy. Don't let any boys around your kids. Angrily make plans to exclude their families when they attend your parties. Act shocked when they show up at your home. How could you not tell me he was a boy. I wouldn't have let him around my children. That's not safe.

Shunning is emotional abuse. Sharing confidential information about a minor is abusive. Most of the people in this thread think they would be justified to abuse an already deeply abused child because of a possibility that isn't even necessarily all that high. I'm sorry, but I'm disgusted.

 

[Farrar]

The risk factors are simply not as high as you think they are. Many other things have similar risk factors. Being male is the biggest risk factor BY FAR. You're perpetuating a myth.

[MaBelle]

3 hours ago, Ottakee said:

 

Ottakee, please delete where you quoted me.  I am going to delete the OP.

Edited August 11, 2019 by MaBelle

[SKL]

Another thought - I am not sure I would allow that foster dad to be alone with my kid.  He is an adult with apparently very poor judgment.

Not sure I would report him for this ... I mean, I understand that there is a shortage of foster parents, and maybe other than his big mouth he is a good one.  I might have said something to him in the moment though.

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes, being male is the biggest risk factor by far.  And I absolutely do my best to avoid having my kids alone with a male not my DH or my Dad (who through experience, is NOT, an abuser.).  

This kid is a male.  Which as you say, is the biggest risk factor.  Already extra caution would be exercised.  

So you're saying that you exercise extra caution with all teen males in every situation? That if you were the grandparent and saw that there was a teen male at the house, you'd feel compelled to warn the parents that he might have been near the kids at a well-supervised party?

I find that sad. For the sake of my teen boys, I find it extra sad. For the sake of my dh, who adores little kids and wouldn't hurt a fly and my ds who loves playing with little kids, I find it sad. We are creating a nation of hate for our boys. Instead of being a nation that teaches boys not to abuse, we try to shield them from all children and teach them that they're so dangerous that they can never be trusted.

[MaBelle]

Just now, Farrar said:

I find that sad. For the sake of my teen boys, I find it extra sad. For the sake of my dh, who adores little kids and wouldn't hurt a fly and my ds who loves playing with little kids, I find it sad. We are creating a nation of hate for our boys. Instead of being a nation that teaches boys not to abuse, we try to shield them from all children and teach them that they're so dangerous that they can never be trusted.

As a mother of boys I do agree, it's criminal to be a boy and it begins in kindergarten.  BUT I do feel a protective urge for my grandkids as well as the other kids there.  I'd rather be safe than sorry.  The foster child will not know and the comments were not made in front of him.

[MaBelle]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I find it unbearably illogical and cruel that despite the fact that the risk factors of a child who was abused are barely higher, people still feel they're right to openly stigmatize this child.

The risk factor of encountering an abuser is higher if it's a boy than a girl. Dramatically. You know, just any boy. Don't let any boys around your kids. Angrily make plans to exclude their families when they attend your parties. Act shocked when they show up at your home. How could you not tell me he was a boy. I wouldn't have let him around my children. That's not safe.

Shunning is emotional abuse. Sharing confidential information about a minor is abusive. Most of the people in this thread think they would be justified to abuse an already deeply abused child because of a possibility that isn't even necessarily all that high. I'm sorry, but I'm disgusted.

 

Who said any of this happened?  You were not there.  There was no shock that he showed up, there was no lack of knowledge that he was coming,  there was absolutely no shunning or keeping children away from him.  There was no stigmatizing.  There was no angrily made plans to exclude them.  Wow.

What did happen was a scramble by my dil to make sure there was plenty of food, drinks and comfort for her guests, none of which were treated like pariahs.  What did happen was no whispering behind the boy's back or asking them to leave.  What did happen was that the boy was treated as the rest of the guests in a welcoming matter.  Even though he was being difficult.  The FP was the only one who was out of place.

You have over imagined the circumstances.  A word to the wise is nothing like what you have described.

 

 

[Pen]

I think your updated plan of action sounds good.  Given that the FP are planning to adopt and statement wasn’t in front of the boy, it could change the level of sense of wrongness about what FP said.  People tend to be more open about adopted children than foster children, and the boy may be in a somewhat gray zone.  

When you talk with your son maybe get his take on the FP before talking to your FP friend.  Find out if your son thinks the man will be a good dad for the boy.  It is really hard for teens to get adopted in many places and can be a huge thing for them in doing well long term.  I’d be wary of messing that up.  If your son thinks the father will be a good dad, I would not talk to the friend (who will be a mandatory reporter as an FP, iirc), and would let it go as far as a report to social services.  If it sounds like boy may be moving into another form of abusive situation, then Id talk to friend and / or report situation. 

[unsinkable]

15 minutes ago, Farrar said:

So you're saying that you exercise extra caution with all teen males in every situation? That if you were the grandparent and saw that there was a teen male at the house, you'd feel compelled to warn the parents that he might have been near the kids at a well-supervised party?

I find that sad. For the sake of my teen boys, I find it extra sad. For the sake of my dh, who adores little kids and wouldn't hurt a fly and my ds who loves playing with little kids, I find it sad. We are creating a nation of hate for our boys. Instead of being a nation that teaches boys not to abuse, we try to shield them from all children and teach them that they're so dangerous that they can never be trusted.

too late.

it's been created and cultivated.

"We have a white male problem in the United States"

SOund familiar?

[MaBelle]

3 minutes ago, Pen said:

I think your updated plan of action sounds good.  Given that the FP are planning to adopt and statement wasn’t in front of the boy, it could change the level of sense of wrongness about what FP said.  People tend to be more open about adopted children than foster children, and the boy may be in a somewhat gray zone.  

When you talk with your son maybe get his take on the FP before talking to your FP friend.  Find out if your son thinks the man will be a good dad for the boy.  It is really hard for teens to get adopted in many places and can be a huge thing for them in doing well long term.  I’d be wary of messing that up.  If your son thinks the father will be a good dad, I would not talk to the friend (who will be a mandatory reporter as an FP, iirc), and would let it go as far as a report to social services.  If it sounds like boy may be moving into another form of abusive situation, then Id talk to friend and / or report situation. 

Good suggestion.

[PeterPan]

15 minutes ago, MaBelle said:

The foster child will not know

That seems to underestimate the power of gossip.

[PeterPan]

5 minutes ago, Pen said:

Given that the FP are planning to adopt

For one, goodness gracious I HOPE the FP is better than this incident makes him sound. And two, doesn't that make it ALL THE MORE obvious why people should not be gossiping and spreading his private information??

[MaBelle]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

The risk factors are simply not as high as you think they are. Many other things have similar risk factors. Being male is the biggest risk factor BY FAR. You're perpetuating a myth.

 I will minimize any possible danger I can.  I don't think mentioning this is outrageous.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

That seems to underestimate the power of gossip.

Also, whether the child knows or not, he will be treated differently, and that will affect him.

[MaBelle]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Also, whether the child knows or not, he will be treated differently, and that will affect him.

That is possible.

[SKL]

Putting this whole thing in perspective - my dad as a grandpa is way more protective of my girls than he ever was of me.  I think the grandparent thing might distort just how vulnerable the children are.

That said - I do think it is appropriate to discuss with your children risk management in general. 

The vast majority of kids who have been abused are not in the system and nobody knows about the abuse.  In all likelihood, some of your grandkids' playmates will have risk factors that you cannot ever know about.  For this reason, risk management is essentially the same whether you know of a specific risk factor or not.

But from a realistic perspective, I can't imagine my mom hearing that kind of thing about a child and not blabbing it to me.  It is more normal than not to share such things with your close family.   So I don't blame the OP for telling her children, but I still think it is wrong that it was mentioned in the first place.

[Pen]

Depending  on what you learn about the FP / prospective adoptive parent(s), it might be that saying something directly to him/them would be a good idea.  

The FP may not realize that he’s causing others to have fear of his child, not sympathy for the situation.  

You may have some idea of the tone and intent and contributing circumstances of how the information was conveyed and have some guess yourself what the intent was—which may or may not be accurate but at least more informed than long distance guesses would be. 

[katilac]

I do have to say that, ime, it is not unusual for foster parents to share too much information in spite of the rules. It's not a good thing, but I wouldn't say it knocks them out of the running to be good foster or adoptive parents. 

[Harriet Vane]

@Farrar You're the hero in this thread. Thanks for speaking truth.

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, sweet2ndchance said:

I just can't agree with that first blanket statement.

Children whose parents refuse to discipline their child can have a child who bullies others. They are abusing others because they have never heard no or suffered consequences for their actions, not because they themselves were abused. You could argue the case that they were neglected by their parents but I don't think you could make abuse allegations stick on the parents.

C 

go read up on childhood emotional neglect.  (re: CEN). yeah - it's a "thing".  it is neglect, and the damage shows up in ways that are completely UNintuitive. it is abusive - even if it won't stick in court and cps doesn't give a fig.  even if the child had three meals and a bed.

[sweet2ndchance]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

go read up on childhood emotional neglect.  (re: CEN). yeah - it's a "thing".  it is neglect, and the damage shows up in ways that are completely UNintuitive. it is abusive - even if it won't stick in court and cps doesn't give a fig.  even if the child had three meals and a bed.

I know very well about childhood emotional neglect, first hand, thank you. And I also know first hand about cps and courts not recognizing the abuse that it is and the lifelong problems it causes. You aren't the only one here who had a crappy childhood. My point was that a spoiled child with doting, over indulging parents could be not abused in any way (physically, verbally, emotionally, financially and any other way you could think of) and still be a bully and abuse others. They aren't copying what has been done to them, they just honestly don't have empathy for others because they have never have to think about anyone but themselves.

[RootAnn]

11 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

normal teens dont' want to hang with little kids. 

Guess I don't know many "normal" teens because I know several who enjoy playing with little kids. One of my kids prefers younger playmates because they aren't as catty, snide, dramatic, or opposite-gender-obsessed as her peers. Other teens love to play with babies & toddlers. Guess that makes them abnormal.

[sweet2ndchance]

10 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Guess I don't know many "normal" teens because I know several who enjoy playing with little kids. One of my kids prefers younger playmates because they aren't as catty, snide, dramatic, or opposite-gender-obsessed as her peers. Other teens love to play with babies & toddlers. Guess that makes them abnormal.

I still prefer to hang out with little kids lol. They are so much more fun and less emotionally draining for me lol.

[gardenmom5]

15 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

I still prefer to hang out with little kids lol. They are so much more fun and less emotionally draining for me lol.

you're not a teenager.  

[gardenmom5]

41 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

I know very well about childhood emotional neglect, first hand, thank you. And I also know first hand about cps and courts not recognizing the abuse that it is and the lifelong problems it causes. You aren't the only one here who had a crappy childhood. My point was that a spoiled child with doting, over indulging parents could be not abused in any way (physically, verbally, emotionally, financially and any other way you could think of) and still be a bully and abuse others. They aren't copying what has been done to them, they just honestly don't have empathy for others because they have never have to think about anyone but themselves.

uh - did you leave something out?  or was that what you meant to say?  that a "spoiled child with over indulgent parents *could not* be abused - and still *not* be a bully.

I happen to think being over indulgent,  etc. etc. - is very selfish (and lazy) on the part of the parent. and they certainly can create bullies by going down that path.   

 

I was listening to a psych who specializes in narcissism - who was describing it's origins.  overly indulgent parents who don't hold their darling accountable is but one source.

[katilac]

7 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 IMO, it is the duty of the foster parent to keep a watchful eye on his child’s interactions with others, knowing the foster child’s history. That’s what he should have been doing instead of blabbing personal details while hanging with other dads and leaving his charge unsupervised with vulnerable younger kids. 

It was never stated that he was left unsupervised with younger kids, iirc. 

[sweet2ndchance]

51 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

you're not a teenager.  

Not even sure what you are trying to say here.

50 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

uh - did you leave something out?  or was that what you meant to say?  that a "spoiled child with over indulgent parents *could not* be abused - and still *not* be a bully.

I happen to think being over indulgent,  etc. etc. - is very selfish (and lazy) on the part of the parent. and they certainly can create bullies by going down that path.   

 

I was listening to a psych who specializes in narcissism - who was describing it's origins.  overly indulgent parents who don't hold their darling accountable is but one source.

Again, not really sure what you're saying or where you are going with this but since I think you might be saying that you agree with me, that children do not have to be abused to be bullies and abuse others, I will just leave it at that. If that's not what you're saying then I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Either way, cheers!

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, sweet2ndchance said:

Not even sure what you are trying to say here.

Again, not really sure what you're saying or where you are going with this but since I think you might be saying that you agree with me, that children do not have to be abused to be bullies and abuse others, I will just leave it at that. If that's not what you're saying then I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Either way, cheers!

teenagers aren't adults - adults aren't teens. so that the poster said they enjoyed little kids is irrelevant to how teens perceive kids.  interests are different, tolerance for small children is different.  it's one of the signs a teen is becoming more of an adult when they can like being around small kids.   

I asked a question about clarifying what you said - because it wasn't clear to me.

[Carrie12345]

11 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes,  I think ppl need to understand that abuse happens in many different situations, including ones people think of as 'safe', and that unpredictable teen boy with a very sad history of drug exposure and sexual abuse, plus reports of in-home violence and foster parents who don't get boundaries (oversharing, not dealing with teens behaviour at party) being around young children is enough of a red flag to take extra precautions.

It doesn't mean anyone is saying the young boy is a predator. He is very likely just a young man who is truly struggling with the effects of his upbringing. And people can feel for him being in that situation. 

But others can also take (maybe unneccesary, maybe not) precautions, like sharing with young children's parents the information that they now have.

Safeguarding means kids before teens, especially teen boys. It just does. 

 

The vast majority of teen boys who were sexually abused, or faced any other horrible trauma, do not wear shirts that identify them as such. And typically do not have adults violating their privacy in social settings.

So, I would think that any rational parent with safety concerns would treat the boy in the given scenario the same way they would treat ANY teen boy who’s detailed history they’re not personally familiar with.  Because any teen boy could be or could have been abused.

 

[SKL]

I would not just assume all girls are safe either.  To me, whether or not to leave my kid alone with someone I don't know very well depends on my own kid's ability to think for and protect herself and react appropriately if something bad does happen.

[Pen]

We read some books about what’s okay touching and safety and talked about that when dc were young.  

I think teaching children and making sure they know to go to and tell a safe adult if there is any problem—or even if they feel uncomfortable is a help.

Different levels of teaching for age 5 or 10 or 15, and depending on situations that might likely come up

 

[Ottakee]

2 hours ago, Pen said:

We read some books about what’s okay touching and safety and talked about that when dc were young.  

 

Just make sure you also cover other situations like having kids undress and/or touch themselves while adult watches.  Or kids taking pictures/videos for an adult.  Then there is having the child watch adult behavior or an adult showing them porn.

There is a lot more to sexual abuse than an adult touching a child.

[Pen]

20 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Just make sure you also cover other situations like having kids undress and/or touch themselves while adult watches.  Or kids taking pictures/videos for an adult.  Then there is having the child watch adult behavior or an adult showing them porn.

There is a lot more to sexual abuse than an adult touching a child.

 

I agree.

Nowadays sexting and other computer issues also.