My parents couldn't control my use of the Internet but that doesn't indicate bad parenting. My parents were able to teach me the values that enabled me to differentiate fantasy from reality, right from wrong.
That is good parenting, teaching your child to make good decisions, you can't guard them forever especially from themselves.
My parents did the same thing in the mid 1990s and were ready to reinforce or correct errant behavior if I didn't follow the rules (which, I did). That is good parenting. In this story, however, that didn't seem to occur - neither the education or the reinforcement.
Different kids are different. You followed the rules, that's great.
I didn't. I was an incredibly difficult child. I was pretty much born with a complete contempt for authority in any form; it's been around for as long as anyone can remember.
That doesn't mean my parents did a worse job than any other parents. Believe me, there was plenty of reinforcement. In my case, however, the reinforcement simply led to further rebellion and deviousness.
So, howzabout we decide we don't know enough about their situation and quit judging them, OK?
As I have pointed out in other comments, this article is a very short snippet of something they must have devoted a great part of their daily lives to for over a decade, you can hardly expect it to explore every avenue they took. They point out as much in the comments, talking about how they consulted with a vast array of people on the problem of their son's homeless girlfriend.
I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and by the sounds of it he has grown into a highly functional, and successful individual. This bears out a hypothesis that they were not systemically bad parents, rather they were dealing with a rather screwed up child/situation and were making the best of it.
I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and by the sounds of it he has grown into a highly functional, and successful individual. This bears out a hypothesis that they were not systemically bad parents, rather they were dealing with a rather screwed up child/situation and were making the best of it.
The ends justify the means? That's rarely a good argument.
There are people who are beaten, raped, and abused on a frequent basis as children who turn out to be fine, upstanding adults, but that gives no reason to support such behavior. People can thrive despite bad circumstances, not because of it.
No rather I am saying that there aren't enough facts to make fair judgements but given the limited facts I get the impression they aren't bad parents, instead they are normal rational caring people who were dealing with a very difficult child.
That is good parenting, teaching your child to make good decisions, you can't guard them forever especially from themselves.