Originally Posted by cattmom
Hitting is normal and expected in some kids at this age, (just like biting) but motivated hitting like this is also aggressive and anti-social, which is why you're teaching him not to do it, rather than just seeing it as a stage that passes.
But is talking to a 2.5 year old really enough to teach them not to hit? 2.5 year olds aren't know for their reasoning skills. A play date/get together/trip to the park/whatever would end the moment my daughter hit someone. Even now at 3.5 she doesn't have the attention span for long talks about the ins and outs why certain things are not Ok. It has to be short and sweet otherwise she tunes out and the message is lost. If this is happening everytime her son hits someone, is he really "getting" these talks if they're the ONLY way she's dealing with the problem?
This is the part about GD that I'm not all that thrilled about. I do believe that sometimes there needs to be consequences to our actions, even if the natural consequence is imposed by me. In this case if you hit, you won't be allowed to play. It's not safe. Today my daughter picked up my 4 month old nephew and tried to carry him across the room after I said no when she asked if she could do it. She got set up at the kitchen table with some drawing materials instead of playing with him because I can't trust her. When it comes to safety there isn't time to wait for young kids to understand a talk, or to wait for a phase to pass. I'm sure I could have had a talk with my daughter about the dangers of carrying the baby - there's pets, stairs, we had craft materials out, etc. But is she really going to stay engaged long enough for it to sink in? I doubt it. She caught on really quickly, however, when she wasn't allowed to play with him if I can't trust her to honor my answer of "no you may not carry the baby, it's not safe".
And on the issue of involving the police, I'm just floored that you're even considering it. As someone else mentioned, you will inevitably involve everyone at the playdate (as they'll be your witnesses since you didn't actually watch the situation unfold), possibly cause this man to loose his job (or pay while fighting the allegations), which of course could trickle down to affect the kids. A police officer who looses his job, or gains a poor reputation due to "child abuse" could potentially have a really hard time getting another job which could result in them loosing their house, cars, or a whole slough of other things. You may not like him, but do you want that for his children? Is he really
deserving of that in this situation? I don't think so. Everyone agrees that while the reaction may be understandable he could have handled it better, but at the same time, you're child is a known hitter and you're refusing to supervise him 100% the time while he's with other children. I hope that he doesn't claim injuries and come after you for negligent behavior in retaliation to child abuse charges. Do you not see how ugly this has the potential to be? And what a complete and utter waste of resources it is?
But above all, I think you're husband is doing a horrendous job of demonstrating to your son how to deal with conflict. And considering the fact that he hits other children, now is really a good time to set a good example on how to deal with this sort of stuff.
And, I think it really sucks that you guys think this is important enough to deter the police away from catching REAL bad guys. People who use the police (and CPS and such) as a tactic for personal fights are abusing the system and potentially causing harm to people who really need the police for REAL crimes.