or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Do you think I'm overreacting?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you think I'm overreacting? - Page 6

post #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy View Post

 holding someone else's daughter and slapping her butt or tickling her under her shirt.

 

 



Why has no one called CPS about this? It is not your job to determine if this constitutes abuse it is CPS's job to determine this. Regardless of how you feel about CPS you need to call for this little girl's sake. I have worked with sex offenders in the past. Really you need to make the call. This child needs your help before it's too late for her. CPs may not do anything but the guy may move on to another location.

post #102 of 127
Thread Starter 

Yes, bu calling CPS will put the mother on their radar, not the man.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristin0105 View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy View Post

 holding someone else's daughter and slapping her butt or tickling her under her shirt.

 

 



Why has no one called CPS about this? It is not your job to determine if this constitutes abuse it is CPS's job to determine this. Regardless of how you feel about CPS you need to call for this little girl's sake. I have worked with sex offenders in the past. Really you need to make the call. This child needs your help before it's too late for her. CPs may not do anything but the guy may move on to another location.

post #103 of 127

Sorry but the child needs help. It's not for you to decide to protect the Mother. If you suspect anything call CPs and ask them if  it's reportable?

post #104 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristin0105 View Post

Sorry but the child needs help. It's not for you to decide to protect the Mother. If you suspect anything call CPs and ask them if  it's reportable?



I'm not protecting the mother. There is nothing for CPS to do about the man. You can't do anything legally to him based on what he did. However, if CPS is called, they will start investigating into the mother and then SHE will be on their radar. They won't do anything about the man until he actually molests someone.

 

It is unfair, wrong, and it sucks, and I know it defies logic, but that is how it is. You won't convince me otherwise because I just got through dealing with CPS. I know how the process works. And I have called on people before so I know how it proceeded and I know what was done.

 

I'm not going to call CPS on this mother as long as she is actively proecting her children. I don't agree with her for accepting his apology, but she is keeping her kids withher and that is all that matters.

post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post

 

 

And as an aside about bad living conditions/predators to children, seriously guys, are you kidding?  Doctors, lawyers, police officers, nursery workers, teachers and veterinarians are ALL just as capable of child rape and abuse as a meth addict or a drunk living in poverty.  Drug abuse is not only a problem for the poor, and mental instability or illness can happen to ANYONE.  You seriously think a "nice neighbourhood" has no paedophiles, no crazy people, no-one with boundary issues?  My abuser was my brother, his abuser was his teacher, this is so often the case. 

 

Money cannot protect you or your children from sexual predators, only vigilance can, and the OP seems to have plenty.


I have not looked up sexual predators - it suspect that does cut across socio economic boundaries.

 

However, if you look at crime in general you are deluding yourself (and justifying living in a bad environment) if you think all places are created equal.

 

Looking just at homicide, I would rather live in Vermont than Louisiana.  And within both Vermont and Lousiana  there are probably safer and less safe places to live.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

 

 


I'm sorry, but it makes little difference what the overall stats are when it comes to the individual.  I've lived in a VERY high crime area.  Rapes out the wazoo BUT the majority of the rapes (there had been 1, in 8 years, which didn't fit this profile) were committed against prostitutes (i lived in a red-light area).  I wasn't working as a prostitute.  I was at significantly less risk by not PUTTING myself at risk.  Likewise there were 3 shootings and dozens of knife-attacks while i lived there, but they were all drugs related and i neither took nor dealt drugs and i kept to myself and didn't mix with people involved in that sort of thing.  If you took out the rapes against prostitutes and drug-related attacks the area was no more dangerous than the more wealthy areas (one of which i now live in - my environment is enviable, not "bad", not sure why you thought otherwise?).  Ironically the muggers from my old area come HERE to mug people, because they know their neighbours aren't worth mugging.

 

Proving that statistically that one area has less gun crime than another doesn't prove everyone in the more dangerous area is surely about to be murdered OR that everyone who lives there, whatever their reasons, are bad parents who need to re-think their whole lives and move.

 

OP that's a great update.  I would guess the man feels cornered (no-one wants the paedophile/pervert label) and is doing what he can.  I would not expect any more incidents based on that, if there are any he knows he's going to be homeless and possibly under suspicion of society's most hated crime.

post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post



 

I'm sorry, but it makes little difference what the overall stats are when it comes to the individual.  I've lived in a VERY high crime area.  Rapes out the wazoo BUT the majority of the rapes (there had been 1, in 8 years, which didn't fit this profile) were committed against prostitutes (i lived in a red-light area).  I wasn't working as a prostitute.  I was at significantly less risk by not PUTTING myself at risk.  Likewise there were 3 shootings and dozens of knife-attacks while i lived there, but they were all drugs related and i neither took nor dealt drugs and i kept to myself and didn't mix with people involved in that sort of thing.  If you took out the rapes against prostitutes and drug-related attacks the area was no more dangerous than the more wealthy areas (one of which i now live in - my environment is enviable, not "bad", not sure why you thought otherwise?).  Ironically the muggers from my old area come HERE to mug people, because they know their neighbours aren't worth mugging.

 

Proving that statistically that one area has less gun crime than another doesn't prove everyone in the more dangerous area is surely about to be murdered OR that everyone who lives there, whatever their reasons, are bad parents who need to re-think their whole lives and move.

 

.


We might just have to agree to disagree.

 

I agree that making good choices and being vigilant are keys to safety, but environment is also a consideration.  From a safety perspective if there is a crime ridden part of a city and a not crime ridden part of a city, I am going to pick the not-crime ridden.  I never said all people in a bad area are about to be murdered or that everyone who lives there is a bad parent. It is all about degree of risk.

 

Even if you are right and it all comes down to lifestyle and vigilance - why would anyone want to live a drug ridden, prostitute filled, high rape area?  headscratch.gifSeeing that sort of thing on a daily basis must affect you - and might affect your (general your) children.

 

I understand wanting to stay near friends and community - but in one town there are almost always less safe and safer area.  Picking  the safer one seems prudent.

 

 

 

  

 

post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post



 

I'm sorry, but it makes little difference what the overall stats are when it comes to the individual.  I've lived in a VERY high crime area.  Rapes out the wazoo BUT the majority of the rapes (there had been 1, in 8 years, which didn't fit this profile) were committed against prostitutes (i lived in a red-light area).  I wasn't working as a prostitute.  I was at significantly less risk by not PUTTING myself at risk.  Likewise there were 3 shootings and dozens of knife-attacks while i lived there, but they were all drugs related and i neither took nor dealt drugs and i kept to myself and didn't mix with people involved in that sort of thing.  If you took out the rapes against prostitutes and drug-related attacks the area was no more dangerous than the more wealthy areas (one of which i now live in - my environment is enviable, not "bad", not sure why you thought otherwise?).  Ironically the muggers from my old area come HERE to mug people, because they know their neighbours aren't worth mugging.

 

Proving that statistically that one area has less gun crime than another doesn't prove everyone in the more dangerous area is surely about to be murdered OR that everyone who lives there, whatever their reasons, are bad parents who need to re-think their whole lives and move.

 

.


We might just have to agree to disagree.

 

I agree that making good choices and being vigilant are keys to safety, but environment is also a consideration.  From a safety perspective if there is a crime ridden part of a city and a not crime ridden part of a city, I am going to pick the not-crime ridden.  I never said all people in a bad area are about to be murdered or that everyone who lives there is a bad parent. It is all about degree of risk.

 

Even if you are right and it all comes down to lifestyle and vigilance - why would anyone want to live a drug ridden, prostitute filled, high rape area?  headscratch.gif

Seeing that sort of thing on a daily basis must affect you - and might affect your (general your) children.

 

 

 

  

 

 

I left an incredibly unhealthy, borderline abusive situation with my XP to take a flat on the private rental market because i was told that i would have to wait 3+ years to get a local authority property UNLESS i was willing to take my baby to the homeless shelter, and then accept whatever housing they offered (if you're in homeless accommodation you only get offered once, if you are not you get 3 offers before they bump you back to the bottom of the list).  3 nights before i was told this a person had set fire to the local homeless shelter (to which i would have been referred) and a baby had died of smoke inhalation.  I was on benefits which ruled out the vast majority of good reliable landlords.  Of the few (good) landlords who WOULD take welfare tenants only 2 had a suitably-sized property available to me which i would be able to pay for (not "afford" - my rent which would have been paid in another cheaper property was over £100 pcm higher than the benefits i got for it, a shortfall which i had to find out of my £50/week income support).  Unfortunately, because they know local authorities are paying rent, they do not always charge fairly.  I did actually have the Rent Officer come in to do an assessment but it made no difference.

 

Interestingly there was actually a flat in a much wealthier area available but it was damp with visible mould, had bars on the windows to the rear, was in a shared close and 3 other properties in the same close were half-way houses for criminals, and had a dangerously dilapidated kitchen and bathroom (as in NO enamel left in the rusty tub).  I didn't take it because even though OUTSIDE might have been safer, i could see inside wasn't going to be.  The flat i took was cold, in a rough area and too expensive for what it was.  BUT it was also on the edge of the city's biggest park, opposite a museum, near a LOT of services for single parents (poverty and single parents often going hand in hand), close to the library, and, most important to me had its own front door to which only i had the keys.  I completely agree it was a trade off.  When DP and i bought the house i'm in now there was NO QUESTION of me wanting to buy there.  But i wasn't being a negligent parent by choosing to live there when i did.

 

I had other choices.  They were:

Take a property i ultimately couldn't afford and face eviction

Take a property having lied about my employment and face eviction (doubt it would have worked as lies go, though i didn't move until she was 4months old, i had a 10week old baby with me when i signed the lease!)

Take a property in a nicer area with a much lower standard of actual housing

Stay where i was and continue my slide into desperate depression and suicidal thoughts until i was hospitalised
 

Sometimes people have really really hard choices to make, and there isn't a "perfect" solution when that happens.  I'm sure some other person, more scared of rape and assault and murder than of asthma and other mould-related illnesses, death in fire due to bars making escape impossible, injuries from rusty bathroom wear and having to live with criminals having a key to the front "safety" door you share took that other flat.  And good luck to them, i'm sure they have a different experience and perspective.  But not everyone living in poverty is choosing it, and not everyone raising kids in poor areas with higher crime rates is doing so out of hateful negligence for their kids welfare - i totally agree that kids need stability, and i can tell you now that for my eldest DD it was MOVING 3 times (from the rough area to a nice area, beautiful rental, then different nice area, beautiful rental, then finally back to first nice area, nice house we bought) that caused her most trauma, not the peaceful 2.5 years she spent living in the rotten area which i was able to shield her from by simply closing my front door and locking it.  "Seeing" prostitution - you mean she saw women, on the streets, talking to each other...?  It wasn't like they asked my 2 year old if she was looking for business, or that my 2 year old was out playing in the streets while these women were getting into cars.  Nor were there drugs being offered to my kid (or to me) or any drug abuse in our faces.  Our one encounter with drugs was to find a used needle in the park, that's happened to me in the supernice area's park too.

post #108 of 127

The fact is that not everyone can live in a green beautiful low crime rate suburb with lots of trees and parks and great schools.  People have to do the best they can, and this living situation might be the best option available to the OP at the moment.  I'm glad the creepy older couple moved out and I hope things continue to improve there, OP!

post #109 of 127

GoBecGo.....

 

Thank you for sharing.  I will try and do the same.

 

I am not poor now, but I have grown up around poverty.  I have not really grown up around crime, though.  Sometimes, however, the two go together - the poor areas of town tend to attract some criminals/ drug addicts, etc,  due to the low rents.  

 

The vast majority of people I knew were generational poor and they could not see a way out of their situation.  If you ever asked them why they could not do anything they always answered "because I do not have the money".  They did not like the area they lived in - but couldn't move "because they did not have the money". It went beyond this - money was always the excuse for everything.  They always had money for cigarettes, though, and for those that drank - booze.  TBH, these are some of the least empowered people I have ever met.

 

Whenever someone starts in on "I cannot move (or xyz) because of money" it always puts my hackles up a bit.  I am reminded of people I know who are stuck in a poverty cycles that they don't even see and certainly are not getting out of.  

 

I really have no issues with temporary poverty or people having to live temporarily in a bad neighbourhood.  I do tend to caution people to not become complacent with it, though, as poverty and living in bad neighbourhoods can become cultural and cyclical.  I have seen it.  

 

As  per your story - I doubt your 2 yr old was affected by the neighbourhood she was in.  She was quite young.  It is a bit of a Russian Roulette game, though, to have a child grow up in a bad area and hope they come out ok.  We can do our best as parents, but environment beyond our four walls does play a role. 

 

 

 

 

 

post #110 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

The fact is that not everyone can live in a green beautiful low crime rate suburb with lots of trees and parks and great schools.  People have to do the best they can, and this living situation might be the best option available to the OP at the moment.  I'm glad the creepy older couple moved out and I hope things continue to improve there, OP!


 

 

There are always going to be people living in crime ridden areas - the OP does not have to be one.  We only get what we can envision, expect and strive for.  

 

I hope the Op (everyone, really) strives to improve their situation.  I have no issues or judgement towards people who are in a tough spot temporarily and do what they have to do.  

 

 

post #111 of 127


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post



 

I'm sorry, but it makes little difference what the overall stats are when it comes to the individual.  I've lived in a VERY high crime area.  Rapes out the wazoo BUT the majority of the rapes (there had been 1, in 8 years, which didn't fit this profile) were committed against prostitutes (i lived in a red-light area).  I wasn't working as a prostitute.  I was at significantly less risk by not PUTTING myself at risk.  Likewise there were 3 shootings and dozens of knife-attacks while i lived there, but they were all drugs related and i neither took nor dealt drugs and i kept to myself and didn't mix with people involved in that sort of thing.  If you took out the rapes against prostitutes and drug-related attacks the area was no more dangerous than the more wealthy areas (one of which i now live in - my environment is enviable, not "bad", not sure why you thought otherwise?).  Ironically the muggers from my old area come HERE to mug people, because they know their neighbours aren't worth mugging.

 

Proving that statistically that one area has less gun crime than another doesn't prove everyone in the more dangerous area is surely about to be murdered OR that everyone who lives there, whatever their reasons, are bad parents who need to re-think their whole lives and move.

 

.


We might just have to agree to disagree.

 

I agree that making good choices and being vigilant are keys to safety, but environment is also a consideration.  From a safety perspective if there is a crime ridden part of a city and a not crime ridden part of a city, I am going to pick the not-crime ridden.  I never said all people in a bad area are about to be murdered or that everyone who lives there is a bad parent. It is all about degree of risk.

 

Even if you are right and it all comes down to lifestyle and vigilance - why would anyone want to live a drug ridden, prostitute filled, high rape area?  headscratch.gif

Seeing that sort of thing on a daily basis must affect you - and might affect your (general your) children.

 

 

 

  

 

 

I left an incredibly unhealthy, borderline abusive situation with my XP to take a flat on the private rental market because i was told that i would have to wait 3+ years to get a local authority property UNLESS i was willing to take my baby to the homeless shelter, and then accept whatever housing they offered (if you're in homeless accommodation you only get offered once, if you are not you get 3 offers before they bump you back to the bottom of the list).  3 nights before i was told this a person had set fire to the local homeless shelter (to which i would have been referred) and a baby had died of smoke inhalation.  I was on benefits which ruled out the vast majority of good reliable landlords.  Of the few (good) landlords who WOULD take welfare tenants only 2 had a suitably-sized property available to me which i would be able to pay for (not "afford" - my rent which would have been paid in another cheaper property was over £100 pcm higher than the benefits i got for it, a shortfall which i had to find out of my £50/week income support).  Unfortunately, because they know local authorities are paying rent, they do not always charge fairly.  I did actually have the Rent Officer come in to do an assessment but it made no difference.

 

Interestingly there was actually a flat in a much wealthier area available but it was damp with visible mould, had bars on the windows to the rear, was in a shared close and 3 other properties in the same close were half-way houses for criminals, and had a dangerously dilapidated kitchen and bathroom (as in NO enamel left in the rusty tub).  I didn't take it because even though OUTSIDE might have been safer, i could see inside wasn't going to be.  The flat i took was cold, in a rough area and too expensive for what it was.  BUT it was also on the edge of the city's biggest park, opposite a museum, near a LOT of services for single parents (poverty and single parents often going hand in hand), close to the library, and, most important to me had its own front door to which only i had the keys.  I completely agree it was a trade off.  When DP and i bought the house i'm in now there was NO QUESTION of me wanting to buy there.  But i wasn't being a negligent parent by choosing to live there when i did.

 

I had other choices.  They were:

Take a property i ultimately couldn't afford and face eviction

Take a property having lied about my employment and face eviction (doubt it would have worked as lies go, though i didn't move until she was 4months old, i had a 10week old baby with me when i signed the lease!)

Take a property in a nicer area with a much lower standard of actual housing

Stay where i was and continue my slide into desperate depression and suicidal thoughts until i was hospitalised
 

Sometimes people have really really hard choices to make, and there isn't a "perfect" solution when that happens.  I'm sure some other person, more scared of rape and assault and murder than of asthma and other mould-related illnesses, death in fire due to bars making escape impossible, injuries from rusty bathroom wear and having to live with criminals having a key to the front "safety" door you share took that other flat.  And good luck to them, i'm sure they have a different experience and perspective.  But not everyone living in poverty is choosing it, and not everyone raising kids in poor areas with higher crime rates is doing so out of hateful negligence for their kids welfare - i totally agree that kids need stability, and i can tell you now that for my eldest DD it was MOVING 3 times (from the rough area to a nice area, beautiful rental, then different nice area, beautiful rental, then finally back to first nice area, nice house we bought) that caused her most trauma, not the peaceful 2.5 years she spent living in the rotten area which i was able to shield her from by simply closing my front door and locking it.  "Seeing" prostitution - you mean she saw women, on the streets, talking to each other...?  It wasn't like they asked my 2 year old if she was looking for business, or that my 2 year old was out playing in the streets while these women were getting into cars.  Nor were there drugs being offered to my kid (or to me) or any drug abuse in our faces.  Our one encounter with drugs was to find a used needle in the park, that's happened to me in the supernice area's park too.


 

Great post--thank you for outlining all of this!  I think you make great points here and perfectly illuminate why great parents make decisions that from far away might not look like the best choices to folks who aren't familiar with the details of a particular situation. 
 

I had a friend in the US who chose the shelter route, and they had a similar set up with housing offers, and she ended up staying six months before getting an offer last year for a one year voucher--but she is disabled, and needs a long term voucher--so now her voucher (that she HAD to accept) is running out and it looks like she and her daughter have to move back into the shelter system.  She can't (and wouldn't want) to stay with me because our lifestyles are so different and we are separted atm by several states--but her updates are heartbreaking. 

 

To the OP--I agree with you about the CPS thing--it does suck but I think you are right in your thinking not to call.  It is sad that the child seems to have been so unprotected, and I think you were right to talk to the mom.

 

In terms of the communal living thing in general--I wanted to mention that I lived in a co-op before I had kids where several housemates did have kids--and the thing that made it "work" was that everyone was super flexible and open to other people's lifestyles and quirks.  Like, you mentioned a woman who let trash pile up and a bare-footed little girl--our household "worked" because no one would have blinked an eye--someone else would have put the trash out and if needed coaxed the child into socks...with no worries.  Talk about it at housemeeting, but in an open minded way.  Some folks had to hold their breath when one of our shaman roomates did taxidermy type work with dead birds in the yard, and others had to dialogue hard about how discrete marijuana smoking needed to be given that there were kids in the mix...but always in a reasoned, gentle way.

 

One serious issue we had in that coop involved  man who rubbed the shoulders of a 13 year old when she was in a towel after showering--without permission.  A mediator was brought in and it was talked through and the man did leave--because the girl was no longer comfortable living around him and he didn't quite "get" why what he did had violated boundaries--but the whole thing was handled with open hearts, open minds, no judgements, just the facts kind of approach.  Nobody "up in arms" and talking about kicking asses...instead the focus was on protecting the rights of minor children but in a calm and level headed way...

 

I guess my point is that commmunal living takes a certain kind of energy, and since you can't choose your housemates in this situation, it might be best to sort of bury your head in the sand a bit--unless someone's kid is in danger, when you can't--but stuff like garbage in someone's room or socks on baby feet--I would leave it be or try to at the very least approach with an open minded stance, not losing your balance as you go.  As you point out so poignantly, your first job is to be present for your own kids and yourself. 

post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


 

 

There are always going to be people living in crime ridden areas - the OP does not have to be one.  We only get what we can envision, expect and strive for.  

 

I hope the Op (everyone, really) strives to improve their situation.  I have no issues or judgement towards people who are in a tough spot temporarily and do what they have to do.  

 

 


When did the OP ever say that she was content to live here for the rest of her life?  She IS trying to improve her situation and living here is an improvement.  I thought she was living here to save money and move somewhere else.  shrug.gif

post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolip View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


 

 

There are always going to be people living in crime ridden areas - the OP does not have to be one.  We only get what we can envision, expect and strive for.  

 

I hope the Op (everyone, really) strives to improve their situation.  I have no issues or judgement towards people who are in a tough spot temporarily and do what they have to do.  

 

 


When did the OP ever say that she was content to live here for the rest of her life?  She IS trying to improve her situation and living here is an improvement.  I thought she was living here to save money and move somewhere else.  shrug.gif



She hasn't - point taken.

 

I tend to to caution people whenever I hear that they live in a not so great environment that they should try and get out.

 

I do this because I have known so many people who have been complacent with their lot in life.  it probably has more to do with me than the Op.  In any event - who cares?  There is nothing wrong with reminding people not to become complacent; if the Op already knows this then great!  

post #114 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolip View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


 

 

There are always going to be people living in crime ridden areas - the OP does not have to be one.  We only get what we can envision, expect and strive for.  

 

I hope the Op (everyone, really) strives to improve their situation.  I have no issues or judgement towards people who are in a tough spot temporarily and do what they have to do.  

 

 


When did the OP ever say that she was content to live here for the rest of her life?  She IS trying to improve her situation and living here is an improvement.  I thought she was living here to save money and move somewhere else.  shrug.gif



She hasn't - point taken.

 

I tend to to caution people whenever I hear that they live in a not so great environment that they should try and get out.

 

I do this because I have known so many people who have been complacent with their lot in life.  it probably has more to do with me than the Op.  In any event - who cares?  There is nothing wrong with reminding people not to become complacent; if the Op already knows this then great!  


I guess I think that there is something wrong with reminding people not to be complacent when they aren't being complacent.  I think that it sends the message that what they are doing is not enough and never will be.  When someone who has made a big change that was not an easy decision, hears that what they did still isn't enough, I doubt that it feels very encouraging or inspiring.

 

OP, I know this thread isn't about you but I do think that it is awesome that you have gotten out of your previous situation and are taking big steps to getting where you want to be.  thumb.gif

post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

GoBecGo.....

 

Thank you for sharing.  I will try and do the same.

 

I am not poor now, but I have grown up around poverty.  I have not really grown up around crime, though.  Sometimes, however, the two go together - the poor areas of town tend to attract some criminals/ drug addicts, etc,  due to the low rents.  

 

The vast majority of people I knew were generational poor and they could not see a way out of their situation.  If you ever asked them why they could not do anything they always answered "because I do not have the money".  They did not like the area they lived in - but couldn't move "because they did not have the money". It went beyond this - money was always the excuse for everything.  They always had money for cigarettes, though, and for those that drank - booze.  TBH, these are some of the least empowered people I have ever met.

 

Whenever someone starts in on "I cannot move (or xyz) because of money" it always puts my hackles up a bit.  I am reminded of people I know who are stuck in a poverty cycles that they don't even see and certainly are not getting out of.  

 

I really have no issues with temporary poverty or people having to live temporarily in a bad neighbourhood.  I do tend to caution people to not become complacent with it, though, as poverty and living in bad neighbourhoods can become cultural and cyclical.  I have seen it.  

 

As  per your story - I doubt your 2 yr old was affected by the neighbourhood she was in.  She was quite young.  It is a bit of a Russian Roulette game, though, to have a child grow up in a bad area and hope they come out ok.  We can do our best as parents, but environment beyond our four walls does play a role. 

 

 

 

 

 


Thanks for sharing Kathymuggle.

 

I definitely know people as you describe (i have some in my family).  For me the poverty was a holding pattern while i got my DD raised to an age i felt ok about using childcare (which is a personal thing, for me i needed her to be at least 3, and then i wanted to be part time maximum until she was in school, all of which became moot since i moved in with DP when she was 2.75 and got pregnant 9 months later and we decided between us that since we can afford it it'd be best for us all if i SAH just now, though in fact i'm doing a little freelance work now).  Ironically enough the way the benefits system works in the UK it actually kept me OUT of work - there is a certain amount that one can earn in a week before one's benefits are altered, but for me, due to my education and the work i commonly do (admin, administrative project management, that sort of thing) it would have been less than half a days' work, and who will employ an administrator for 3 hours a week?  Not most normal employers (my current work is for the IM who looked after me during DD2's pregnancy, and she is gold dust, since i am even fine to take the baby to work with me!) that's for sure.  So i thought well, i'll get a part time job, but then i would have earned "so much" that i lost pretty much ALL benefits, even though i'd be earning substantially less, once you factored in my subsidised rent and taxes being taken, than i was on benefits.  So basically the only way i could come out ahead (given i would also have to pay for childcare, which started at £400/month when i first looked and got more expensive the better the facility - a good place with gentle practices, low staff turn-over, small group sizes and good equipment was £600-£700 month for 8am-6pm Mon-Fri) was to take a full time job, 40 hours.  And to be completely honest, though i know some people think "morally" or "ethically" one should work if one is able, i really didn't WANT to put my kid in full-time childcare and never see her so i could work my azz off and still *just* be able to afford to live in my cold flat in that horrible area.  I did see the Lone Parent Advisor about this.  She did the calculations, figured out how it all looked and advised me to take a part time job at McDonalds "because then at least you'll be working and you'll still be on the same money".  I will admit to being the snob who doesn't WANT to be away even part time from my baby so i can work at McDonalds and break even.

 

I agree that complacency is dangerous.  I guess i don't see that in the OP, maybe you do.

 

I have to disagree a little with the roulette theory.  I grew up in nice areas, of moderate means (not rich, not in poverty by a long way!).  My brother did too.  He is currently unemployed, uses drugs, is alcohol-dependant and has multiple physical, mental and emotional issues.  Most, surely, began when he was molested by a well-respected teacher at our lovely little primary school (my class, which was primaries 1, 2 and 3 together had NINE kids in it, there were only 32 kids in the whole school).  I think what happens to us, and more importantly HOW WE FRAME IT, is what empowers or disempowers a person, not so much where we live.  My DP had a gang of friends as a teen who got more and more "wild" and eventually one pulled a knife on another.  DP left the group, and he suffered for it, they called him, taunted him, accused him of being a snob for "deserting" them.  But he simply wasn't willing to risk getting stabbed in order to keep these people happy.  Growing up his parents encouraged him to be honest with himself and choose his friends carefully.  He didn't have to move house to remove himself from that group, several of whom are now in prison or dead, he just needed to be of a mindset that he wasn't going to be led by people he knew were going bad places.  I definitely think one can do that as a parent, empower one's kid, encourage critical awareness of personalities and influences in their lives, and give them the tools to find and enjoy the better situations life offers.

 

This was an interesting discussion, thank you! thumb.gif

post #116 of 127

Great news, OP! Sounds like rattling cages has had the desired result. Good on you for noticing and getting the ball rolling so these creeps could be evicted.

post #117 of 127



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_McG View Post

Exactly.  It's one thing to hope your child can hold their own if the unmentionable were to occur.  that's a lot different than willingly putting yourself in housing that has pedophiles and crackheads living there.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbailey View Post

No offense but your post sounds a little delusional OP.Obviously there are crazy people everywhere but it's not a safe environment to have children in when there are "creepy" people and meth heads around. It's one thing for a meth head to live across the hall from me when I am able to go inside the safe confines of my apartment and don't have to deal with him/her than when you are in a situation where you do. The state of Virginia has wonderful resources to help parents who are struggling financially and/or need help with housing.

 

Your three year old can hold his own against whom? He's three years old. Even the smartest three year old can do but so much.


Butting in here.....while I know a three year old couldn't physically hold his own against a grown man or woman, he could have the knowledge and ability to defend himself in other ways. (screaming and yelling) or telling his mother anytime someone made him uncomfortable, or by not playing into adult's creepy advances, saying back off/don't touch me/go away from me/etc.

My kids grew up in boatyards where there was every different flavor of crazy all the time. We had some good trusted friends and most people were very nice, but there were a lot of transients, lots of drunks, the odd crackhead, trigger happy crazies, perverts, and just plain old crazy and I'm sure there were a few pedophiles thrown into the mix.. We taught our kids that no one touches them. No one. We taught them to yell, kick, scream and tell. As a result they were like rattlesnakes, if someone tried to pick them up and carry them (other than us) or sit them on their lap, forget it, they'd writhe and hiss and kick, and they had no problem at all telling an adult to 'go away from me'. One time DD was on the tire swing and there were other kids waiting so this guy plucked her off the swing and tried to carry her to the picnic table, he didn't make two steps before boys were yelling at him to 'put my sister down you SOB' and she was running to me. 

I think that we all (well most folks anyway) instinctually teach our kids what they need to know to protect themselves where ever we happen to be living.  The OP knows there's some untrustworthy people where she's living and she's teaching her child accordingly which should be applauded.

post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post

 


I'm sorry, but it makes little difference what the overall stats are when it comes to the individual.  I've lived in a VERY high crime area.  Rapes out the wazoo BUT the majority of the rapes (there had been 1, in 8 years, which didn't fit this profile) were committed against prostitutes (i lived in a red-light area).  I wasn't working as a prostitute.  I was at significantly less risk by not PUTTING myself at risk.  Likewise there were 3 shootings and dozens of knife-attacks while i lived there, but they were all drugs related and i neither took nor dealt drugs and i kept to myself and didn't mix with people involved in that sort of thing.  If you took out the rapes against prostitutes and drug-related attacks the area was no more dangerous than the more wealthy areas (one of which i now live in - my environment is enviable, not "bad", not sure why you thought otherwise?).  Ironically the muggers from my old area come HERE to mug people, because they know their neighbours aren't worth mugging.

 

Proving that statistically that one area has less gun crime than another doesn't prove everyone in the more dangerous area is surely about to be murdered OR that everyone who lives there, whatever their reasons, are bad parents who need to re-think their whole lives and move.

 

OP that's a great update.  I would guess the man feels cornered (no-one wants the paedophile/pervert label) and is doing what he can.  I would not expect any more incidents based on that, if there are any he knows he's going to be homeless and possibly under suspicion of society's most hated crime.



I am sorry but I have also lived in an incredibly high crime area and was a victim of crime as were many friends and neighbors who lived in the area.  I now live in a nicer area and know far fewer people who experienced anything like what we did in our old neighborhood.  Environment makes a HUGE difference with kids.  Just the stress of living somewhere that you don't feel safe can very negatively impact your parenting.  OP might be stuck between a rock and a hard place, and only she can judge that.  Glad to hear the one couple is gone at least.

post #119 of 127

bigeyes.gif Wait a second...maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough, but I don't recall you mentioning previously "  and no man with common sense would be holding someone else's daughter and slapping her butt or tickling her under her shirt. " That stuck out to me because that is so obviously molestation! If anyone touched my daughter's butt- she would feel uncomfortable and would tell immediately. That sort of touching, especially from a stranger is unacceptable! Also, as a side note- I do believe if the man " slapped " any part of a child that was not his- especially in the lewd way that you described, it should be possible to legally hold it against him. Forget calling cps- call the police! the mother should press charges for that man's lewd conduct with a minor and possible assault- since he should not have put his hands on that child in any way, especially slapping on the behind! This should also be enough to cover the mother's end of a cps investigation ( in case any one else called on her because of neglect or whatnot) because it would show that she was invested enough to protect her children rather than passively accepting apologies that may or may not be real from creepos with wandering hands.

post #120 of 127
Thread Starter 

I agree 100%. I did mention the tickling previously, not sure about eh butt slapping. I think that came out when the ther mother and I spoke to her.

 

Unfortunately we are in a very small town which has serously the stupidest police officers God ever made. Recently (in connection with the drug use of that other couple) they decided to search the building for drugs. I was fully prepared to be searched and expected it to last a while. It lasted under 5 minutes. I expected mattresses to be slashed or at least flipped over, drawers to be pulled out, pictures taken of the wall etc. All they did, literally, was LOOK AROUND with their EYES. They didn't bring dogs or anything. It was insane. after they searched th whol building they said they had found some baggies of cocaine downstairs as well as some paraphernalia but they "couldn't prove whose they were." Uh, fingerprinting, anyone? Drug testing? They found bottles labeled for 360 morphine pills in the older couple's room, but because they had a prescription they again "couldn't do anything." How about investigating why a docgtor would rpescribe 360 morphine pills to someone? The police here are idiots.

 

Sadly I have no confidence that they would handle it right. They'd probably find some way to screw that up too. eyesroll.gifQuote:


Originally Posted by Mammajamma View Post

bigeyes.gif Wait a second...maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough, but I don't recall you mentioning previously "  and no man with common sense would be holding someone else's daughter and slapping her butt or tickling her under her shirt. " That stuck out to me because that is so obviously molestation! If anyone touched my daughter's butt- she would feel uncomfortable and would tell immediately. That sort of touching, especially from a stranger is unacceptable! Also, as a side note- I do believe if the man " slapped " any part of a child that was not his- especially in the lewd way that you described, it should be possible to legally hold it against him. Forget calling cps- call the police! the mother should press charges for that man's lewd conduct with a minor and possible assault- since he should not have put his hands on that child in any way, especially slapping on the behind! This should also be enough to cover the mother's end of a cps investigation ( in case any one else called on her because of neglect or whatnot) because it would show that she was invested enough to protect her children rather than passively accepting apologies that may or may not be real from creepos with wandering hands.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Do you think I'm overreacting?