Is this GD / Natural Consequences? Really need advice

[tammyw]

I've posted one other time about my child playing with her good friends and all of them acting inappropriately - hitting mostly. She also started hitting, kicking, and saying hurtful words to us. This mostly started about two months before I had our new baby (he's one month old). My DD is almost 3.5 and her friends are 3.5 with siblings around 2 years old.

BUT when with her friends, I'm trying to figure out what's a good way to stop this behavior. We've used all kinds of nice talk to try to get it to stop, we model good behavior, and yet nothing works.

So I'm wondering if we have to say that when they hit each other, we will immediately leave, and then follow through. And continue "leaving" each time this happens. Is this considered GD with natural consequences? Sometimes I struggle with the natural consequences thing.

Truth be told, sometimes I think I'm fearing discipline so much that I've become a doormat and I just don't know what to do. I feel really lost right now with the whole GD thing. I'm about ready to lose it each time she kicks or hits me.

My daughter is also a screamer and I really need to know how to deal with that, but maybe that should be a separate post.

Please, please, please help!

[maya44]

Leaving is not a natural consequence, but it is a logical one, and to me is just fine.

I use logical consequences only to protect my child or the person or property of another. Making sure a child is not hit certainly qualifies.

[sapphire_chan]

It sounds like a reasonable consequence for me. Not necessarily a "natural consequence"--still trying to work out the whys and hows of those. Really, one of the requirements of social interaction is a minimum level of behavior and if that level of behavior is not met than stopping the social interaction makes sense.

I'd remind them of the rule when they first get together and again from time to time as you see behaviors building. Like, if they tease each other, maybe ask "Are both of you having fun?" because it's frequently when one child is *not* having fun with a teasing game that they react more aggressively.

[marincarrie]

We've had a terrible problem with this! My son is almost 3, and we've also had to leave when things get out of control. I see it a different way, however. He plays ok at first, and then things sort of deteriorate. I think he's overwhelmed, and overstimulated. He protests leaving at first, but then he'll lay his head on my shoulder and suck his thumb. I feel like I'm helping him to "come down." We usually go inside and do something quiet, like read, and then try again. The problems we have had are with our neighborhood kids--there are a lot of them, and I think he just needs a break to calm down. Sometimes we go back with no problem, other times we ended up leaving again.

I do tell him that hitting is not ok, we need to be kind to our friends, etc., but I also tell him that it looks like it's too much and that he needs a break. Sometimes he agrees, sometimes he protests. I really try not to see it at punishment at all, more that I'm helping him to learn ways to calm down.

As another poster said, when my son does these things with the other boy on the street who is his same age, and they are playing monters and both are having fun, I don't intervene. I do think it's key for them to recognize whether or not the other child is participating in the game, or is scared!!

Hope this helps...
Carrie & Boden (8-19-03)

[crb]

I think the idea of natural consequences are they are things that would happen w/o intervention of parents. So if child leaves the caps off markers, the markers dry out. Certainly, you would remind the child about this fact, but you would not cap the markers for the child. The result would be that the markers could no longer be used. Natural consequences are tough, since many kids have more stuff than they can easily take care of for themselves, and so don't always "feel" the consequence as you might like. It sounds like what you are talking about is logical consequences, developed by you to teach/protect your child.

[katallen]

Leaving is a very reasonable logical consequence for out of control behavior. For the screaming I would calmly tell her that you don't like that type of voice and will not respond until she uses a normal voice and then follow through. It may escalate for a while and then go down to a managable level. I would definitely avoid responding in any way even if you really want to because she will most likely learn to take her voice to that level to get an immediate response and will very quickly. Make sure you discuss the rules in the car and what your daughter can do when she is angry and then follow through with the consequence that you feel is best for the situation and give it some time to sink in that you are serious even if there are a few repeats of needing to leave.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by maya44

Leaving is not a natural consequence, but it is a logical one, and to me is just fine.

I use logical consequences only to protect my child or the person or property of another. Making sure a child is not hit certainly qualifies.

: you are describing a LC - not an NC. I agree that the LC of leaving is a good one.

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

The natural consequence of one child hitting another is the "hittee" than turns around and slugs the "hitter". Not something that I would want to encourage or even let happen if I could avoid it, since this quickly becomes a safety issue.

Leaving is a logical consequence, and one that I would use in this situation. If you don't want to actually leave the house, you could compromise with everyone taking a break and playing separately for a bit. For me, this about both demonstrating to your child that violent behavior isn't appropriate and protecting the other child (or vice versa, since this can easily go both ways).

If this happens frequently during playdates then you should probably also look at the way playdates are structured and supervised. Do you need to limit their duration? Provide different snacks? Have more toys? Put special toys away? Plan more organized activities? Chose a neutral or different location?

[EmmaJean]

I know you said you tried "nice talk", but does that include finding out the reason they are hitting and then talking about/helping them do things that are more appropriate? I've found this very helpful w/ my 4yo, to get eye level, not threatening, and find out what he was *trying* to do--hitting was just not the appropriate way to do it. Like he was trying to be silly, he was trying to tell his friend he didn't want to share, etc. It may be an age thing too b/c now he can understand, and it's not just ME talking and lecturing, it's a conversation we can have. And I give him the words to say "I don't like it when you hit me so please stop" or "I would like to have a longer turn and when I'm done you can have the toy back". Stuff like that.

Well, good luck. Hitting is never fun. I also have a 2yo who likes to bite, and having a conversation is not the way to handle things w/ her! Lots of supervision and intervening there.

And don't be afraid to be a parent! I know it's hard when you have all these differing things going through your head. I have LOTS of voices in my head!! we just have to make a choice in the moment (maybe after taking a breath to calm down!), and then we can reflect on it later and see what works and what doesn't.

(((hugs))) and You're doing a great job! We're all works in progress, right?!

[Brigianna]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're doing, but I would try to make sure that I was teaching her not to hit, and not just teaching her that if she hits, she will have to leave. I have dealt with the hitting situation by picking up the kid and moving her while saying firmly "Please don't hit [whomever]. It's wrong to hit people," and repeat as necessary. But I assume you've already tried this or something similar. Also, I think it would be better to remind her in advance, not in a threatening kind of way, but just saying something like "remember that if you want to play with [friend], you have to play gently." That way it's not like a punishment, but simply a statement that playing gently is a requisite of playing with a friend.

[chefpaige1]

I love the LC of leaving when the hitting starts. Here's the problem: What if you have more than one child? Why should the other children and myself have to be punished by leaving? What do you think of having the hitting child sit by me and not be allowed to play?

[tammyw]

I would try to make sure that I was teaching her not to hit, and not just teaching her that if she hits, she will have to leave.

Oh my goodness, YES! I feel like we're constantly talking about this. I incorporate it into a lot of the stories I tell her. I talk to her about it ALL the time. We have books "Hands are not for Hitting", "Feet are not for Kicking", and "Words are not for Hurting".

We talk after it happens, before it happens, while it's happening. Everything. That's why I feel like it's hopeless. Because for some reason, my child (and her friends) have decided that no matter what we say or do, they will continue to hit. And part of the problem is my friend's little boy is two and doesn't listen to reasoning, and when he starts hitting, then they do as well. We've tried separating them also.

The thing is they will hit, then five minutes later be friends.

And when she hits or kicks me, I want to literally slap her. I feel like I'm at my wits end.

[sapphire_chan]

So logical consequences are for when people or irreplaceable things are going to be damaged?

Like, you'd use the logical consequence of the child needing to play in another room if the child's going to upset you making dinner, but the natural consequence of the child needing to wipe up the floor if the child's going to upset their glass?

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

So logical consequences are for when people or irreplaceable things are going to be damaged?

Like, you'd use the logical consequence of the child needing to play in another room if the child's going to upset you making dinner, but the natural consequence of the child needing to wipe up the floor if the child's going to upset their glass?

First, everyone has really different criteria and feelings about using logical consequences at all. My personal rule of thumb is that I will try to use natural consequences (things that happen without any action on my part) as much as possible. I will move to logical consequences when the natural consequence is too dangerous (natural consequence of playing roughly with a dog might be dog bite, but I wouldn't let that happen, so I would move the child away from the dog with the logical consequence of not being able to play with the dog at all) or when the natural consequence could teach a lesson that I'm uncomfortable with. For example, in the hitting senario, allowing the other child to hit back could teach that it is OK to hit back, which I don't believe is true. So, I guess I use logical consequences when the natual consequence message could be ambigous and/or potentially undesirable. But that's my approach, others here would have a really different opinion.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by EmmaJean

I know you said you tried "nice talk", but does that include finding out the reason they are hitting and then talking about/helping them do things that are more appropriate? I've found this very helpful w/ my 4yo, to get eye level, not threatening, and find out what he was *trying* to do--hitting was just not the appropriate way to do it. Like he was trying to be silly, he was trying to tell his friend he didn't want to share, etc. It may be an age thing too b/c now he can understand, and it's not just ME talking and lecturing, it's a conversation we can have. And I give him the words to say "I don't like it when you hit me so please stop" or "I would like to have a longer turn and when I'm done you can have the toy back". Stuff like that.

This is the type of thing that helps my ds, even though he is 2 and not very verbal yet. Finding acceptable alternatives really helps him to get out that original impulse (impulse=frustrated. action=hitting. alternative=make a "mad face" or clap hands, or say "I'm angry", etc)

I don't use "logical consequences" as a teaching tool. (I don't like behaviorism used on kids). But I would leave if ds was hitting and I'd exhausted all the teaching ideas I could think of- I'd tried empathizing, giving acceptable alternatives, giving information, etc. Because at that point, I'd figure the problem was too big to deal with there, and the other child has a right to keep her body safe.

[annarosa]

I think that leaving if hitting occurs would be a fair way to try to check the behaviour
you would need to be consistent and do it every time - know if you would give any warnings and have explained what you would do if hitting occurs before you actually even get to the playdate
this means that you would not be 'setting up' your dd for failure
after leaving 3 or 4 times you can then better assess whether or not this is having the effect you want - ie. for the hitting to stop

[maya44]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I don't use "logical consequences" as a teaching tool. (I don't like behaviorism used on kids).

Me neither. I use it to protect my child or to protect another child OR his or her property.

My child's right to no consequences in discipline is trumped by another person's right to be secure in their person and property.