Would you disown your child if they committed a serious crime?

[Anonymous]

I've never understood 'disowning' as a concept. Like, would I cut a mass murderer out of my will? Yeah. Are there crimes both legal or emotional that could possibly cause an estrangement? Of course, although I will do everything in my power to prevent something like that. Would I publicly stand by, support, and love a child no matter what they did? I doubt I would do that if my kid was a remorseless serial killer or pedophile.

But disown implies that there is some way to not 'own' your child, and I don't see how that is possible. Estranged, not estranged, supportive, critical, there is always something, there is always a tether. I cannot imagine a way to sever the emotional tether I have to my children. I cannot imagine a way to ethically sever myself from who they become.

I also think that for most people who grow up to be very troubled or commit heinous crimes, the family has frequently known there is something deeply wrong with their child and tried to do what they can, or enabled it in some way. Or the criminal was abandoned by their family and that is why they are a criminal.

Anyway, 'disown' is a meaningless word to me. If my child did something heinous that I never saw coming and showed no remorse, like my perfectly normal child was arrested for being a Jeffrey Dahmer or something. Even if I never spoke to them again, I would still be their mother, and would never be the same after that came out. Is it just like, the meanest thing you can imagine saying to them? Because like, if they show remorse, then I'd probably be there, and if they didn't, then they are a sociopath and won't care how I feel about them. It is just silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serial killer, rapist, 9-11, a Timothy Mcveigh bombing. Yes I would.

Unless you are as messed up as your offspring - Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a criminal. If my child had to kill to protect themselves against someone who attacked them unprovoked I would certainly stand by them.

If they committed an actual real serious crime it would be harder. I wouldn’t enable or defend them but I would visit them in prison and so they could feel they still had a family, it would be my cross to bear.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble! Are you kidding me? Noone leaves their house, with full on assault rifle, to not look for trouble. He is a vigilante.

I would be embarrassed to be his parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serial killer, rapist, 9-11, a Timothy Mcveigh bombing. Yes I would.

Unless you are as messed up as your offspring - Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a criminal. If my child had to kill to protect themselves against someone who attacked them unprovoked I would certainly stand by them.

If they committed an actual real serious crime it would be harder. I wouldn’t enable or defend them but I would visit them in prison and so they could feel they still had a family, it would be my cross to bear.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble! Are you kidding me? Noone leaves their house, with full on assault rifle, to not look for trouble. He is a vigilante.

I would be embarrassed to be his parent.

He had a semi auto AR 15, which is neither an assault rifle nor a “full on” anything.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't disown them but I wouldn't be advocating for them to get leniency, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serial killer, rapist, 9-11, a Timothy Mcveigh bombing. Yes I would.

Unless you are as messed up as your offspring - Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a criminal. If my child had to kill to protect themselves against someone who attacked them unprovoked I would certainly stand by them.

If they committed an actual real serious crime it would be harder. I wouldn’t enable or defend them but I would visit them in prison and so they could feel they still had a family, it would be my cross to bear.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble! Are you kidding me? Noone leaves their house, with full on assault rifle, to not look for trouble. He is a vigilante.

I would be embarrassed to be his parent.

He’s a loser

He had a semi auto AR 15, which is neither an assault rifle nor a “full on” anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serial killer, rapist, 9-11, a Timothy Mcveigh bombing. Yes I would.

Unless you are as messed up as your offspring - Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a criminal. If my child had to kill to protect themselves against someone who attacked them unprovoked I would certainly stand by them.

If they committed an actual real serious crime it would be harder. I wouldn’t enable or defend them but I would visit them in prison and so they could feel they still had a family, it would be my cross to bear.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble! Are you kidding me? Noone leaves their house, with full on assault rifle, to not look for trouble. He is a vigilante.

I would be embarrassed to be his parent.

He had a semi auto AR 15, which is neither an assault rifle nor a “full on” anything.

It killed two people, so it seems like it was a full on gun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serial killer, rapist, 9-11, a Timothy Mcveigh bombing. Yes I would.

Unless you are as messed up as your offspring - Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse is not a criminal. If my child had to kill to protect themselves against someone who attacked them unprovoked I would certainly stand by them.

If they committed an actual real serious crime it would be harder. I wouldn’t enable or defend them but I would visit them in prison and so they could feel they still had a family, it would be my cross to bear.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble! Are you kidding me? Noone leaves their house, with full on assault rifle, to not look for trouble. He is a vigilante.

I would be embarrassed to be his parent.

+1. The law may have judged him innocent of any crime, but the world has decided differently. After the right wing grows tired of him, which they absolutely will if they haven’t already, he’ll just be another George Zimmerman. He better be on his best behavior because he will get slammed for any crime he decides to commit from here on out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood 'disowning' as a concept. Like, would I cut a mass murderer out of my will? Yeah. Are there crimes both legal or emotional that could possibly cause an estrangement? Of course, although I will do everything in my power to prevent something like that. Would I publicly stand by, support, and love a child no matter what they did? I doubt I would do that if my kid was a remorseless serial killer or pedophile.

But disown implies that there is some way to not 'own' your child, and I don't see how that is possible. Estranged, not estranged, supportive, critical, there is always something, there is always a tether. I cannot imagine a way to sever the emotional tether I have to my children. I cannot imagine a way to ethically sever myself from who they become.

I also think that for most people who grow up to be very troubled or commit heinous crimes, the family has frequently known there is something deeply wrong with their child and tried to do what they can, or enabled it in some way. Or the criminal was abandoned by their family and that is why they are a criminal.

Anyway, 'disown' is a meaningless word to me. If my child did something heinous that I never saw coming and showed no remorse, like my perfectly normal child was arrested for being a Jeffrey Dahmer or something. Even if I never spoke to them again, I would still be their mother, and would never be the same after that came out. Is it just like, the meanest thing you can imagine saying to them? Because like, if they show remorse, then I'd probably be there, and if they didn't, then they are a sociopath and won't care how I feel about them. It is just silly.

The word means to refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with. That’s exactly what people are talking about . It has nothing to do with actually owning them.

[Anonymous]

If Rittenhouse was just hanging out with his family at home and some thugs broke in and threatened everyone and he shot the intrudes dead then I would 100% support him and my kids if they did the same. That’s pure self defence. That’s not what Rittenhouse did. My definition of the right to self defence incudes the concept of the obligation to reasonably avoid obvious danger except to defend life. Life, not property. Going to a planned political protest open carrying with an AR-15 fails that test for me.

I have taught my kids that human life is more important than property. I taught that if they are ever mugged to just let go without protest, it’s just not worth it. Stuff can be replaced, they can’t.

I would be happy to support a federal level pledge to fully reimburse property owners who are victims of vandalism by riots if that prevents future cases of Rittenhouses feeling the need to open carry to “ protect property”.

Regardless I condemn Rittenhouses actions that night and would feel disappointed and a parental failure if my kids did the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood 'disowning' as a concept. Like, would I cut a mass murderer out of my will? Yeah. Are there crimes both legal or emotional that could possibly cause an estrangement? Of course, although I will do everything in my power to prevent something like that. Would I publicly stand by, support, and love a child no matter what they did? I doubt I would do that if my kid was a remorseless serial killer or pedophile.

But disown implies that there is some way to not 'own' your child, and I don't see how that is possible. Estranged, not estranged, supportive, critical, there is always something, there is always a tether. I cannot imagine a way to sever the emotional tether I have to my children. I cannot imagine a way to ethically sever myself from who they become.

I also think that for most people who grow up to be very troubled or commit heinous crimes, the family has frequently known there is something deeply wrong with their child and tried to do what they can, or enabled it in some way. Or the criminal was abandoned by their family and that is why they are a criminal.

Anyway, 'disown' is a meaningless word to me. If my child did something heinous that I never saw coming and showed no remorse, like my perfectly normal child was arrested for being a Jeffrey Dahmer or something. Even if I never spoke to them again, I would still be their mother, and would never be the same after that came out. Is it just like, the meanest thing you can imagine saying to them? Because like, if they show remorse, then I'd probably be there, and if they didn't, then they are a sociopath and won't care how I feel about them. It is just silly.

The word means to refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with. That’s exactly what people are talking about . It has nothing to do with actually owning them.

My long post up there was basically just saying that the bolded is dumb and childish. Saying 'I have no son' dramatically to make some kind of point is childish. Doing so out of humiliation/wanting to avoid attention (if you were the parent of a serial killer or something) is more understandable but it still doesn't make you any less their parent. As a concept I think disowning is silly.

[Anonymous]

That seems to be the kind of thing you say when you're terrified your child won't make good choices for the right reasons (personal integrity, care for self and others) so you try to deter them with a big consequence . . . I'll disown you!

I believe that even the worst humans are still humans who are just very broken. I can have some degree of compassion for them, for the good life they never got to experience by some combination of nature and nurture. So no, I can't imagine disowning a child, but I'm sure I would be heartbroken if they did something unthinkable.

If your child is an addict or abuser then you may need serious boundaries that might include not seeing your child if they can't meet your conditions. But I think there would be always be the hope that you could open that door again at a later time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rape, murder, and pedophilia - yes.

I was just thinking about this yesterday, actually. I watched a Casey Anthony documentary. Her father has disowned her; her mother has not. I’m with the dad.

So am I.

Me too. The fact that she then tried to throw her dad under the bus to get herself off is even worse....team dad on this one unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If Rittenhouse was just hanging out with his family at home and some thugs broke in and threatened everyone and he shot the intrudes dead then I would 100% support him and my kids if they did the same. That’s pure self defence. That’s not what Rittenhouse did. My definition of the right to self defence incudes the concept of the obligation to reasonably avoid obvious danger except to defend life. Life, not property. Going to a planned political protest open carrying with an AR-15 fails that test for me.

I have taught my kids that human life is more important than property. I taught that if they are ever mugged to just let go without protest, it’s just not worth it. Stuff can be replaced, they can’t.

I would be happy to support a federal level pledge to fully reimburse property owners who are victims of vandalism by riots if that prevents future cases of Rittenhouses feeling the need to open carry to “ protect property”.

Regardless I condemn Rittenhouses actions that night and would feel disappointed and a parental failure if my kids did the same

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Of course not. I am all for tough love. But I would always love my child and always repeat that to them no matter what. As the sibling of an addict, I absolutely see many instances in which I may have to distance myself. But in no way could I ever disown my child. I believe doing so is way worse than almost any other crime imaginable.

[Anonymous]

No. I think that’s when they would need help the most.