Basically a vent: Very disappointed with my 7 yrs old - Page 2

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by Heavenly

I would love to know how the "just talking no consequences ever" method works in the long run. Because what I see in the families I know who employ this method is a bunch of kids who think the rules don't apply to them. Sure, it sounds good when your kid is little and within your family but if an older person breaks the rules there are consequences - fines, possibly jail time. That is real life. Teaching your child that there are no consequences to their actions is just completely unrealistic.

There's a middle ground between protecting kids from the consequences of their actions and piling on extra consequences in the form of punishment. This kid is already experiencing some pretty strong consequences, considering her age.

I agree with you that there are consequences for actions, but I would argue that, as a parent, I don't always have to add my own artificial consequences for my child to learn. I want my kids to learn to do the right thing for the right reasons, not only to avoid punishment. (To muddle the issue, sometimes I am the one providing the "natural" consequence, like when my dd was careless with my laptop, she lost the privilege of using it for a while).

FWIW, I was rarely punished as a child, and I wasn't a wild teen, and am a rule-follower as an adult. The main consequence when I screwed up was knowing I'd screwed up, and dealing with people treating me differently because of that.

IME, the kids who think the rules don't apply to them typically have parents who actively protect their kids from the natural consequences of their actions (in this situation, that would be going down to the school and trying to get the kid back on the bus immediately). On the other end of the spectrum, IME, kids whose parents went overboard with punishments tend to go a little nuts when they know they won't be caught, because the only reason they know to behave is to avoid punishment.

[Shera971]

Originally Posted by zeldamomma

Yes. Piling on punishments if she's already mortified at her own actions won't make her learn the lesson better, it will only damage your relationship so she cares less about your opinion the next time she screws up. She's already being punished by the school, and it's a pretty severe punishment, IMO.

I don't know if I agree. Throwing glass bottles is definitely inappropriate but throwing them AT the bus brings to to another level. Somebody could have been seriously hurt. I think having to walk to school, cleaning up the glass etc aren't punishments but natural consequences of her actions. I don't think they should all be enforced (because as you say that would be piling it on) but I think a learning opportunity would be lost if nothing but talking was done by the parents. As well, I think its important that the OP or partner participate in the consequence so the DD doesn't feel alone or ostracized. If she's walking to and from school go with her or help her pick up the glass. 7 is still very young and I bet she would appreciate the support.

[4evermom]

My ds threw a glass bottle a few months ago... I think he was a little surprised by the result and a bit embarrassed afterward. He didn't want to talk about it. We didn't impose consequences and he hasn't done it again.

I can see that a kid would assume that a bus could not be hurt by a bottle and not think that's dangerous. And really, it isn't unless it hits the windshield and startles the driver or if it breaks and glass lands on nearby people. Of course, I'm not saying it's a good idea! Just that from a kids perspective it isn't necessarily malicious, not much different than throwing a snowball at a bus.

I'd think not being able to ride the bus was plenty of consequence, too. I would think she'd find that a bit embarrassing. I would also think maybe I needed to wait at the bus stop and supervise her until she got on for a while after this incident.

[ASusan]

Many of the suggestions here allow the child to take responsibility for her actions - writing a letter of apology, sweeping up the glass... These types of consequences sound very appropriate to me.

[lucysmom]

Originally Posted by Heavenly

I would love to know how the "just talking no consequences ever" method works in the long run. Because what I see in the families I know who employ this method is a bunch of kids who think the rules don't apply to them. Sure, it sounds good when your kid is little and within your family but if an older person breaks the rules there are consequences - fines, possibly jail time. That is real life. Teaching your child that there are no consequences to their actions is just completely unrealistic.

I am occasionally tempted to impose "consequences" when my daughter does something intentionally wrong (minor naughtiness, like pressing the play button anyway when I told her to stop watching a video because it's dinner time -- stuff of that caliber). Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. What I've noticed is that whether I impose consequences doesn't seem to affect whether she changes her behavior -- she does, either way. The consequences (like no movies, no dessert) just seem kind of arbitrary and mean by the time I'm imposing them.

So why does she change her behavior when there are no consequences? Well, apparently because she cares about my opinion & it wounds her when I have a poor opinion of her behavior. I value this and want to preserve it. And so, somewhat counterintuitively, I've usually chosen not to impose extra consequences beyond my disapproval, because I want her to care "merely" about my disapproval. I want it to mean something on its own, without her asking "and will there be consequences?" as if, unless there are "consequences," she doesn't really care that I am unhappy with what she'd done.

I hope that makes sense. I am avoiding random punishments because I think they dilute the power of good old fashioned parental disapproval.

My kid, who does not get punished by and large, is highly compliant and very reasonable in her every day decisions. One could argue endlessly about which is the cause and which the effect, but it just feels to me like I myself should act as though my disapproval is significant enough on its own to warrant behavioral change.

We are reading Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder. As some of you may recall, there is one chapter in which Almanzo goes too close to the hole in the lake ice when they are cutting ice for the ice house, and almost falls in. He's sure he will get "thrashed." But then his dad says "you musn't do that ever again. I could thrash you. I've decided not to, but I want you not to do that again." Almanzo feels so grateful for the unexpected grace extended by his dad, and takes the admonition totally seriously.

I read that to my DD the morning after she had been a bit naughty the night before (promised to stay in bed, then repeatedly got out for no particular reason). I gave her a hug and said "I've decided not to 'thrash' you for breaking your promise last night" (we had spoken of how there would be "consequences" at the time; to be clear, she knew I would never hit her, and that "thrash" was a metaphor for whatever video-related consequences I had been considering) "but I want to talk to you about what a promise is, and why it is so important that we keep our promises to one another." Instead of having a wailing session about some random punishment, we had a warm cuddling session where we talked about promises and trust and mutual expectations. I was glad I turned away from the "consequences" at the last minute -- it just didn't feel right.

Since then, she's kept all her promises and makes clear she believes that is very important.

[Heavenly]

Every child is different though. No, I am not playing the "well, you only have one child" card but it is in some sense true. I have one child who would respond the way you are saying. I have another who at the age of 1 would put her little hands on her hips, stomp her foot, and stick her tongue out at me when I tried to tell her to stop something. I parented them the same way. But some kids are naturally more compliant and some are hell on wheels and that's a fact. So if I decided to not impose consequences on my little rule-breaker I guarantee she would not just comply. Not at all! And my oldest has bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder so again, the way you are describing just would not work for him. I think when you have one, naturally compliant child it is hard to imagine that a child could be any other way and that it is ALL your parenting. I used to think that too. But then I got my little one and went, "Oops!" Mine are 9, 7, and 4 now and if there's one thing I've learned it's that every child is different and they all need different ways of being dealt with and imposing consequences (non-physical) on them is not harmful in any way and helpful in many ways. JMHO.

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by Heavenly

Every child is different though. No, I am not playing the "well, you only have one child" card but it is in some sense true. I have one child who would respond the way you are saying. I have another who at the age of 1 would put her little hands on her hips, stomp her foot, and stick her tongue out at me when I tried to tell her to stop something. I parented them the same way. But some kids are naturally more compliant and some are hell on wheels and that's a fact. So if I decided to not impose consequences on my little rule-breaker I guarantee she would not just comply. Not at all! And my oldest has bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder so again, the way you are describing just would not work for him. I think when you have one, naturally compliant child it is hard to imagine that a child could be any other way and that it is ALL your parenting. I used to think that too. But then I got my little one and went, "Oops!" Mine are 9, 7, and 4 now and if there's one thing I've learned it's that every child is different and they all need different ways of being dealt with and imposing consequences (non-physical) on them is not harmful in any way and helpful in many ways. JMHO.

I have 3 kids. My least compliant is most like my husband in personality. His parents were of the "you can't let the kid win" mentality. He figured out what they were doing and he decided to make sure they wouldn't "win" any stand-off. So, when he did something wrong and was punished, he wouldn't think about what he did wrong and why it was wrong, he'd concentrate on making sure the punishment didn't "work". He's a perfectly moral person, but he didn't follow his parents' rules as a kid, and did some dangerous stuff that could have turned out really badly.
I don't know if a more cooperative approach might have worked better, or if he was going to be hell on wheels regardless, but I'm not interested in playing the game of constantly raising the stakes the way my ILs did, and I feel like aiming for cooperation is working better for my non-compliant child-- if she knows that I am willing to help her with her goals, she is willing to work with mine.

I'm not saying you should change your approach, just that there is another side to this.