# Until what age should parents be responsible for their children?



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

To help them with living expenses if so needed or to give them a free place to stay. Or to help with emergencies.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

I think a place to stay should be offered forever but the children should financially contribute. As far as living expenses go, until they are out high school or college and land their first job.


----------



## Ms kim (May 15, 2017)

Once anyone is an adult, you are responsible for yourself but I don't think there's a age limit to parents helping out. It all depends on the needs of their children. Parents should always be there for their children, but not to enable them to be lazy or to shield them from the consequences of any bad behaviour.


----------



## harrison (Apr 14, 2012)

I think it depends very much on the circumstances. My son was very independent and moved out ages ago as he had finshed his Uni course and got work very quickly, but if things had been different and he couldn't work for example then he could always have stayed home. As for emergencies we would always be there for him, no matter what - and if he needed money for an emergency we'd find it.

There's no hard and fast rule - it depends. But I think anyone that's had a child would do anything for them if they're even half-way decent.


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

They should always be there for emergencies, this world can be a dark, cruel place & they knew that when they were giving in to the temporary pleasure of carnal desires, being independant from a young age can make people stronger & grow more as an individual, but everyones different & need different scenarios to grow, theres no one rule that fits all.


----------



## firestar (Jun 27, 2009)

I think emergencies is a good place to draw the line. I'm torn on this because I definitely needed a place to stay after I graduated from college, but they've also supported my older brother in ways that I think are unreasonable - they pay for his cell phone, help out with food and living expenses, and take care of his dog. He doesn't pay rent but found enough money to buy and maintain a motorcycle.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

What do you do if the "kid" can't seem to hold onto a job or is crappy with budgeting? Like every few months they need to borrow money to pay the rent. Or they have no savings, so whenever any emergency comes up they can't pay for it. Like my sister can't afford expensive veterinary care for her dog.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

morally? ethically? legally? common sense? socially accepted? causally? own unconsidered point of view?

depends on the parents, depends on the child, depends on the culture, depends on other support available, depends on a lot of things.

what is a parent? who is on the birth certificate? one or two or more?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

morally/ethically

Would the parents be considered bad people for refusing to let their 25 year old kid (who has $300 to their name) move in with them?


----------



## firestar (Jun 27, 2009)

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to that situation. If I were the parent, I would seek out a therapist for myself to help me work through my feelings and to decide what I should do that's best for my child.


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

komorikun said:


> morally/ethically
> Would the parents be considered bad people for refusing to let their 25 year old kid (who has $300 to their name) move in with them?


..I'd say it depends on whether they think he/she will survive on his/her own or not, depends on his/her history if they steal money, make noise at night, do drugs, destroy property etc ... Some lost people need to be put in a sink or swim scenario for their own good, some people need help, if the parents done they're best till they were 25 they should have no worries morally or ethically, some people plain don't wanna be saved.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

komorikun said:


> morally/ethically
> 
> Would the parents be considered bad people for refusing to let their 25 year old kid (who has $300 to their name) move in with them?


hedonism = kid doesn't make you happy then forget about them. **** em

utilitarian = you can do more for other kids financially, but probably not emotionally so you should chat to them etc. as long as it yields the greater utility. but they should house people that can pay rent and then use the money to support starving kids.

deontological/duty = depends what you think is the duty of parents to do. begging the question.

virtue ethics = the middle point between no help and all the help they want. so maybe some financial help or help to apply for emergency housing via government whatever.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

This is a topic on which I feel ill at ease commenting because I'm a dependent "adult child" myself, and I frequently feel very bad because of this, but I've never been able to work or handle things on my own; I never even babysat younger relatives or mowed anybody's lawn when I was younger, and I'm much worse off now. :/

I pay the utility bills with my SSI, though. (Previously we were always paying late, borrowing money from relatives not much better off than we were, and getting things shut off...I remember cowering every time a utility truck went by, and I would check the flame on the stove to see if it was still on. Very bad times.) I managed to get back our security deposit from the gas company by paying the bill on time enough months in a row. I guess my parents had never been able to do that before.


----------



## cybernaut (Jul 30, 2010)

Edit: I voted for the "when the kid has a kid of their own" option. When you decide to have your own child, then it's definitely time to wake up, grow up, and be responsible. Don't throw that crap on the parents unless its an emergency and the parents willingly step up on their own to handle things. The below part still applies as well- specifically for those without their own kid.

That aside, the rest is subjective. If we were living in slightly past times you would probably get a lot of "after college" responses. But today, you have crap like competitive & horrible job markets, non-affordable housing, and tons of 20-something year olds who finish university and cannot find a job immediately after graduation.Then, what? This is something that I try to emphasize- particularly when it comes to my parents and their 50-year old traditional mindsets.Then of course you have the outliers, in which adults rely on their parents due to laziness, financial pitfalls (eg: eviction), natural disasters, health related issues, etc.

I think it only becomes a burden or an issue when you have a 100% physically-capable adult who leeches off of the parents or remains financially irresponsible for many years. This includes my 49-year old uncle who has a decent paying job. Yet, he has lived with his parents for years (lost his home from financial reasons), had them pay off his cars, and has never contributed to their household or elderly health issues- especially financially. He's essentially 100% free from rent,bills, and expenses.


----------



## harrison (Apr 14, 2012)

komorikun said:


> What do you do if the "kid" can't seem to hold onto a job or is crappy with budgeting? Like every few months they need to borrow money to pay the rent. Or they have no savings, so whenever any emergency comes up they can't pay for it. *Like my sister can't afford expensive veterinary care for her dog*.


I wouldn't consider that an emergency tbh. I'd be thinking in terms of them having an accident overseas and can't get home or something terrible like that.

I guess it depends what you think an emergency is. For things like a pet being sick I'd make them deal with it.


----------



## Suchness (Aug 13, 2011)

I don't know about responsible but they should always be there for them.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

The poll and the title are two different questions. To the title question, ideally at least until the end of college and taking on some level of responsibility for life or until roles reverse (and the parent needs to be taken care of by the kid) is praiseworthy. To the poll question, 18.


----------



## shyraclifford (Jun 24, 2018)

sixteen to eighteen years old or age of majority in your country


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

If you look at the parents' resources and the child's resources as a single financial pool, there are many situations where it makes sense for the adult child to live with the parents (eg. university). It's usually cheaper for the family as a unit for the child to stay in the home than to move out. Especially if the parents are just going to get roped into helping their child pay their bills when they run into trouble. More of the resources remain inside the family instead of going to landlords, utility companies, etc. This is one of the reasons why people had large families historically: because it meant more people contributing to the prosperity of the family. Whether or not it is an advantage or disadvantage for the child to stay at home depends entirely on how responsible and capable the child is.

I think traditionally young adults bought their own homes when they wanted to raise their own families, not because their parents necessarily wanted them to leave, but because the children wanted to avoid interference with child rearing and conflicts over household management. Having their own home was an _expense_ which they took on to avoid generational conflict. It used to be very common for at least one child to stay with the parents to take care of them in their old age. (The ones who couldn't escape through marriage.) The idea that every child should have their own place and live independently is actually a very recent and unusual expectation, considered from a historical perspective. And it obviously depends largely on the economy. It used to be fairly easy, but it is no longer possible in many cases.

I got kicked out when I was 18 and my parents have told me (repeatedly) I can't come back. If I lose my home, I will be homeless. That is not an idle threat. Two of my sisters have been homeless, and a third would have been homeless if I hadn't let her live with me. I do have two siblings who did stay past 18, but they are both considered unfit for work and receive disability. And they still made one of them leave as soon as they could get a spot at an assisted living facility. I don't think my parents' feelings about it are all that uncommon.


----------



## Tetragammon (Jun 2, 2015)

Forever -- which is a big part of why I never want kids. 

I think that the kind of parents who just shove their kids out the door at 18 or 21 or whatever are terrible people who shouldn't have had children in the first place.


----------



## Blue Dino (Aug 17, 2013)

Kids and grandkids or even great grandkids of uber wealthy parents that gets their inheritance will be forever. Assuming one of these generations do not blow it all away on lavish things, partying and drugs. Or become enstranged from their kids.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Well, granted. But my parents' attitudes aren't all that different from the attitudes of the mental health community or the community in general. If I end up homeless it won't only be because my parents have washed their hands of me, it will also be because the mental health community has washed their hands of me, and because the wider community has washed their hands of me. (I'm not arguing that they should do otherwise, btw, merely stating the facts.)

It's quite normal here for people with mental illness to end up homeless. Many of those people are mentally ill because they come from abusive households. So expecting the parents of these children to care for them, when they have previously spent their time abusing them, or for the adult children to stay in an abusive household, seems unreasonable. These children leave home because it is better for them not to be there.

You may be right to pin all the responsibility on the parents (I have no interest in arguing the point) but since those parents _aren't_ taking responsibility, you're ultimately shifting the responsibility to the children. The rest of the community certainly has no interest in taking responsibility for them. If I end up homeless, no one is going to do anything about it. They might blame my parents initially, but when that fails, they will shift the blame to me. So everyone ultimately agrees with my parents that I should be self-sufficient. Blaming the parents just lets them wash their hands of it.


----------



## CloudChaser (Nov 7, 2013)

Well obviously parents should be prepared to have their children be completely dependant until they are legally adults. That's a given. 

After that I think that as long as their children are being reasonable there should be no end to the help they can get. But if they are just taking the piss then there needs to be some kind of limit. 

For example,

1. 'Mum/Dad, my car just broke down and it's the end of the month, I would really appreciate borrowing some money so I can eat and heat the house at least until I get paid.' - 'Of course son/daughter, that's reasonable and sometimes things get ****, we would rather you borrow from us than go to some dodgy lender.'

2. 'Mum/Dad, I know I just got paid last week but I saw this really cool TV I wanted and it was on sale but it was still really expensive and now I can't pay my bills, can I borrow some money?' - 'Alright, you can borrow just enough to get you through but we won't be doing this again.'

3. 'Mum/Dad can I have some money to buy heroin and condoms?' - 'No **** off.'


Also if your inaction as a parent is going to lead your child to be homeless and starving, you should probably do something. Unless they are like a murderer or rapist or something.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Well, it's also socially acceptable to indiscriminately hoard resources you don't need, even though this hoarding deprives other people of resources they do need. Some people are dying homeless in the streets while other people are busy playing real-world Monopoly. The "conditions that kids face" are heavily impacted by the social acceptability of resource hoarding. I don't think you can simultaneously give people a pass on resource hoarding and castigate parents for indiscriminately having children without entering ethically murky waters. They're both an abdication of responsibility, imo.

But as I said, I have no real wish to argue who is or who is not responsible. I'm much more concerned about "is" than "ought". If I end up homeless, that's my problem, and I don't expect anyone else to do anything about it or even to care about it. Nor do I blame my parents. My parents adopted 4 abused children to try to give them a better life. They've done more than 99.99% of the population, even if it hasn't worked out as well as it could have. I'm not going to hold it against them.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

It varies. My kids will always have a place to stay but they need to know how to be independent as well. I think its all about how they were raised. But if my kids really needed something I got them. 

This is something I don't worry about though because if you raise them right they'll be ok. If they stayed with us they would be helping out......I don't see the down side really.....kids helping out makes work around the house easier......if they help financially thats great as well. 

As long as I raise my kids to be Godly people my job is done .


----------



## RagnarLothbrok (Dec 16, 2016)

Until they are seriously ill or elderly. I don't plan on being dependant on my parents when they are 70+, it's not fair on them. I plan to move out in the next two or three years.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I pick whichever answer eventually leads to euthanasia being legalised for people like me.

Also most people shouldn't have kids, especially now that we've created an environment where maybe 20%+ are ****ed to some degree automatically. Eusociality requires most people don't breed, and that seems to be what we want and yet what's actually happening (though I need to look into this more,) is that people right at the top and right at the bottom are having the most kids (the bottom wouldn't be having kids in an actual eusocial system.)


----------



## JH1983 (Nov 14, 2013)

Parents should be getting their kids their first homes in their late teens or early 20's. Usually before or after college or when they get married. Obviously the kids need to start to pay their own utilities, property taxes, homeowners insurance, etc. I'm not ever having kids myself, but just going by what I've seen from family and people I've known. It makes sense to get the kids a good start in life and learn to be independent and also gets the parents their privacy back after like two decades without it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

voted for 16. kids are basically their parents property. they can do what they want as long as its legal/they get away with it. they dont have any financial obligations except not getting into trouble if people say they are neglected etc.

that's why there are laws about these things.

until they are their own person, then its all up to them. you'd hope that things like personal responsibility and love and stuff come into it from the parents but its not really a responsibility. the state will look after anyone that can't look after themselves (at least here they do), though that care might be pretty ****ty.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

JH1983 said:


> Parents should be getting their kids their first homes in their late teens or early 20's. Usually before or after college or when they get married. Obviously the kids need to start to pay their own utilities, property taxes, homeowners insurance, etc. I'm not ever having kids myself, but just going by what I've seen from family and people I've known. It makes sense to get the kids a good start in life and learn to be independent and also gets the parents their privacy back after like two decades without it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Don't think my dad would have been able to afford a $500,000 home in Los Angeles for me. Maybe he could have helped with a down payment though. Several of my coworkers that own their own home had their parents help with the down payment (back when they were in their 20s).

Don't think it's a coincidence that neither me nor my sister ever learned how to drive. I was quite interested in learning when I was a teenager but he refused to teach me...some excuse about his insurance.


----------



## Evo1114 (Dec 9, 2012)

I think my parents did it right. At age 16, I was told they'd still buy me the essentials, but anything extra I wanted I'd have to buy myself and thus get a job in order to do so. At 18 I started buying EVERYTHING on my own (I lived at home for one semester). I paid for college on my own. They would always help out if I NEEDED it, but I never really needed them to help out with anything.

So start pulling away when they reach 16, 18 cut away the cord completely but be ready to help out if absolutely needed (with essentials that is...not talking about paying an overdue cell phone bill or something).


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

*never*

don't flood the planet with more humans

be responsible

become mature, don't stay at primary school level which everyone does.

the successful and forever happy come from biggest families. immature

only way to cope with overpopulation is death. end healthcare. anyone with imperfect health should die. no old nursing care. kill those 80?

trim the planet. get rid of excess humans. any reason.. extraverted


----------



## Mondo_Fernando (Jun 26, 2014)

komorikun said:


> Don't think it's a coincidence that neither me nor my sister ever learned how to drive. I was quite interested in learning when I was a teenager but he refused to teach me...some excuse about his insurance.


You needed to be named on insurance policy and he pays more if under certain age for youngest driver (supposedly a higher risk of crashing). It might have been budget constraints as to why he couldn't pay the extra. Every dollar counts when paying bills, mortgage, etc.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Uniman said:


> You needed to be named on insurance policy and he pays more if under certain age for youngest driver (supposedly a higher risk of crashing). It might have been budget constraints as to why he couldn't pay the extra. Every dollar counts when paying bills, mortgage, etc.


He still went traveling all around the world with the old bag less than 2 years later.

And he wonders why I'm not terribly enthusiastic with his idea to live near me after the old bag kicks the bucket. So now you want to be a family!?....when you need someone to take care of you in your old age......


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

truant said:


> Well, it's also socially acceptable to indiscriminately hoard resources you don't need, even though this hoarding deprives other people of resources they do need. Some people are dying homeless in the streets while other people are busy playing real-world Monopoly. The "conditions that kids face" are heavily impacted by the social acceptability of resource hoarding. I don't think you can simultaneously give people a pass on resource hoarding and castigate parents for indiscriminately having children without entering ethically murky waters. They're both an abdication of responsibility, imo.
> 
> But as I said, I have no real wish to argue who is or who is not responsible. I'm much more concerned about "is" than "ought". If I end up homeless, that's my problem, and I don't expect anyone else to do anything about it or even to care about it. Nor do I blame my parents. My parents adopted 4 abused children to try to give them a better life. They've done more than 99.99% of the population, even if it hasn't worked out as well as it could have. I'm not going to hold it against them.


I didn't know your siblings were adopted. I thought you said it was the bad genes that caused all the mental illness in your family.


----------



## 972873 (Dec 3, 2018)

They should live with their parents until they get married (which should be a goal instead of just going through the motions of life) instead of moving out on their own because it's good morale support especially "college dorm party 24/7 lifestyle".


----------



## Mondo_Fernando (Jun 26, 2014)

komorikun said:


> He still went traveling all around the world with the old bag less than 2 years later.
> 
> And he wonders why I'm not terribly enthusiastic with his idea to live near me after the old bag kicks the bucket. So now you want to be a family!?....when you need someone to take care of you in your old age......


So it was for a luxury, not a need. One would think kids are more of a priority.

Could give him a retirement home pamphlet. The look on face would be priceless.


----------



## SilentLyric (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't like asking for money if I can't help it.

emergencies, always. unless you are not that close to family some other person you are close to. or hopefully at least you get good quality care.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

When you live on your own and you're able to support yourself financially, that's when.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

I don't think it's necessarily an age, more of like where you are at in life. 

If you're living on your own, employed, paying your own rent, and for the most part paying for most of your stuff, then that's when you're 100% grown up, and your parents are no longer responsible for you. 

If you're in your twenties and you're not there yet, then you should be working towards that goal.


----------



## thomasjune (Apr 7, 2012)

Does forever mean they're not allowed to die until we're dead? I guess they should have thought about that before they decided to have kids. Selfish pricks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I heard the parents growing old and dying is a big problem if their child has down's syndrome. Or some other disorder (mental or physical) where it's impossible for the child to ever become independent.


----------



## thomasjune (Apr 7, 2012)

Ok. So our parents are/were idiots. I guess there's nothing else for us to do but to scream and shout and throw temper-tantrums for the rest of our lives. 
Listen I'm not about to stand here and argue with you or anyone else. If you want to blame your parents and everyone else's parents for your/our crappy lives then go ahead. I don't care.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

komorikun said:


> I didn't know your siblings were adopted. I thought you said it was the bad genes that caused all the mental illness in your family.


Half of them are adopted, but they're all from the same parents. So it's two sets of parents, two sets of disorders.


----------



## firestar (Jun 27, 2009)

komorikun said:


> I heard the parents growing old and dying is a big problem if their child has down's syndrome. Or some other disorder (mental or physical) where it's impossible for the child to ever become independent.


My younger sister has resigned herself to taking care of our older brother when my parents aren't able to any longer. We don't talk about it a lot, but everyone knows that that's how it's going to be.

It sucks. She's so young and hasn't even started her career yet, but she feels responsible for him, while the rest of us don't. I'll support her if she supports him, but I won't support him directly.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

thomasjune said:


> Ok. So our parents are/were idiots. I guess there's nothing else for us to do but to scream and shout and throw temper-tantrums for the rest of our lives.


 Or, we could simply write what we think about it on the internet so people have something to think about before they make the same mistakes. Of course common sense should have already prevented that before anyone really had to actually spell it out. But I'm willing to use my misfortune as an example for other people to learn from. If all my ranting about it prevents it from happening to just one person, it has been worth it.

We're all looking for "our purpose". I guess mine really is to serve as a warning to others. They'll never get that message if I don't talk about it. And apparently, the people who need to hear it the most do not understand subtle messages.


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

Depends on the kid. Some kids are incredibly mature and capable of caring for themselves at an early age. Others need some extra help.


----------



## LydeaCharlotteGirl (Aug 27, 2013)

unix said:


> They should live with their parents until they get married (which should be a goal instead of just going through the motions of life) instead of moving out on their own because it's good morale support especially "college dorm party 24/7 lifestyle".


I answered forever, but I really don't know what's right, am never going to be a parent myself anyway. But as long as they can actually move out and do their own thing (which sadly is becoming increasingly difficult for young people nowadays), I really don't see why anyone should be forced to live with their parents until they get married. Especially if they don't get on well with their parents. And if two people want to get married then fine of course, but I think it should just be something that happens by chance. Not neccessarily seen as a goal or a religious/moral virtue.


----------

