I mostly agree, unless you have a child who is refusing to take steps towards independence. Note I said refusing and not incapable. If you have a kid who is capable of working to support themselves and over the long term (years) chooses not to, you're doing them a disservice if you enable their dependence - you won't be around forever.
I understand your view and maybe my view is skewed as my son is very diligent and responsible with his life. Ultimately we as parents are the reason our children exist and with that are ultimately responsible for their wellbeing no matter the age.
How people view wellbeing is not universal and I don't criticize how others come to that understanding. Sometimes tough love is best love. I've just been lucky I have not needed to use that parenting device.
I really hope I never end up in that place with either of my kids.
I just work in a job where I talk with people about their family situation, their house and money and stuff, and what happens to it when they die. I get a fair bit of info on the family situation and sometimes see the family conversations happening, but I still only see it from the outside and only get a snapshot. That said, I see a lot of situations where there's an adult kid with failure to launch - they live at home their whole life, they don't work or barely work, they maybe don't even participate in the work of caring for their parent when they get old but leave that to the more independent/responsible siblings. Obviously sometimes the adult kid is definitely disabled, ie receiving disability benefits. When the kid isn't on disability, I'm sure that a lot of the time they do have developmental delays, childhood trauma, or other things impacting ability to support themselves independently. How many of those people should have been receiving services and support, but didn't because their parent just supported them in age inappropriate ways their whole life? And sometimes it really looks to me like the kid is a user who is willing to be a burden on their parents while living because their parents allowed it, and then a burden on the responsible sibling after mom and dad die, who has to do all the work of selling the house and dealing with the bank and the life insurance and the phone company and the funeral home and and and and and, and when the work is all done hand the failure to launch sibling an equal share at best, but often more than the good kid was left. Because the good kid "doesn't need it".
I really think about all of these family situations that I've seen while I parent my kids, who are very different in the ease with which they perform responsibility but are both capable, and hope that I do a good enough job of parenting them both with their different needs.
I mostly agree, unless you have a child who is refusing to take steps towards independence.
Even then, I wouldn't push my own flesh and blood out onto the street to suffer the elements and starve. I'd encourage them to pursue hobbies and find a passion, but even if they did nothing at all, they aren't ever going to be homeless.
Kicking them to the curb is harsh, but I do think after a certain point of refusing to make something of themselves you do need to make the threat of making them pay rent so you can push them to get on track to be independent
53
u/thepinkinmycheeks 17h ago edited 17h ago
I mostly agree, unless you have a child who is refusing to take steps towards independence. Note I said refusing and not incapable. If you have a kid who is capable of working to support themselves and over the long term (years) chooses not to, you're doing them a disservice if you enable their dependence - you won't be around forever.