Some people believe that children should spend all of their free time with their families. Others believe that this is unnecessary or even negative. Discuss the possible arguments on both sides, and say which side you personally support.

Nobody can deny that parental influence is important for teenagers, at least in cases where

children

live with their parents, foster parents or guardians.

However

, it is by no means clear that

children

should spend

time

exclusively in the family, as we will see. On the one hand, it may appear advisable for parents to act as role models and to establish ground rules for behaviour by spending as much

time

as possible with their

children

.

This

allows the youngsters to absorb conventions and codes of conduct which they can

then

follow themselves, hopefully leading to an absence of problems

such

as bullying, truancy and delinquency later on.

Furthermore

, being with the family should reduce the risk of

children

falling victim to crimes

such

as abduction, or coming under the influence of negative peer pressure.

On the other hand

, we have to ask whether

this

is a practical proposition. In a society where many families are dual-income, or where one parent’s role as breadwinner means he/she is away from the family for long periods, 6 it is inevitable that youngsters cannot spend all of their

time

with the family. Child-minding and after-school childcare are often used in these cases, and if managed properly, these can be perfectly viable alternatives. Equally, it seems that youth can in some cases learn a considerable amount from their peers

in addition

to adults, and allowing them to play without direct supervision may be a benefit. To conclude, it appears that, while family

time

is essential for bonding and absorbing patterns of behaviour, there are definite advantages when

children

are outside the family too.

This

is provided that they are in a safe, well-behaved environment with peers who are themselves reasonably well brought up.