Originally Posted by Dragonfly
The law doesn't always make sense, unfortunately. Offering dinner at 6 or 7 pm and then nothing afterward would put the average child without food for over 12 hours. And if you've ever gone to bed with a hungry belly, you know that it's really no picnic.
I just don't get that. Why the need to exercise such control over a child's eating? I can understand not wanting to continue making and dishing out food and doing up clean-up, but to not allow any food when there are other alternatives?
If the issue is truly not the child's hunger, having other food availible wouldnt be any type of solution.
Also I dont know about anybody else, but the types of food that my kids can get on their own are usually far less nutritious than what I made for dinner. I seriously WANT to encourage my child to eat dinner rather than snack on some dry cereal, crackers or a piece of cheese an hour later. And I see no problem in taking steps to encourage it.
WE all have different priorities. As such it can sometimes be difficult to understand somebody elses choices.