Accused of abuse - Page 3

[blessed]

First of all, I too am in sympathy and awe about dining out with six young kids. And I concede that dealing with that many kids is more complicated and ends up compromising parenting techniques just so that everyone can get through the day.

But from my standpoint, it seems as though things could have been handled differently, irrespective of whether you were criticized about your discipline. There's no question that you can make a 2 yo sit down, or stop hitting, or be quiet, or what have you. So, in that sense, time outs 'work'. But at what cost?

If I spoke to dd sternly, forced her to sit, pulled her along by the arm, and did time outs with her, our relationship would be badly damaged. And the lessons she would learn would not be any that I care to teach. I would not allow any friend or relative to interact with her in that manner, and I would instantly discharge any childcare provider who did so.

A two year old standing up in his chair in the middle of dinner is developmentally and socially appropriate behavior for that age. Personally, I would have encouraged him to sit, getting out of my chair to good naturedly talk to him and help him. If he was frustrated and hitting, I would have shown gentle disapproval about the hitting, then quickly diverted back to pleasant, positive interaction, taking him for a walk or outside the restaurant for a short while. Not in a punitive or punishing way, but simply in recognition that a 2 yo has limited patience, attention span, and ability to cope with social situations.

I don't want dd to behave in a restaurant out of fear of my angry response, or the possibility of punishment, but because she's made a thoughtful choice about the rights and needs of others and how her behavior effects them. If I intervene with force and punishment to teach, these more mature and sensitive motivations arren't given a chance to develop.

[ThreeBeans]

Blessed, that's great with one child. Not so great when you're playing zone defense.

[sapphire_chan]

On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.

True.

I'm also confused by the whole time-out thing......if the child can be simply instructed to sit in time-out and obeys without physical coercion, why is the instruction to sit in the high chair different?

[ThreeBeans]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

True.

I'm also confused by the whole time-out thing......if the child can be simply instructed to sit in time-out and obeys without physical coercion, why is the instruction to sit in the high chair different?

Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Remove the stimulus, and suddenly getting cooperation gets a hella lot easier

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Huh. That hasn't been my experience....that my kids think it's "fun" to do things they're not supposed to.

I tend more toward the Peggy O' school of thought:

Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.

So I would have assumed that a two year old was bored and restless confined to one spot/high chair. I like the visit the fish tank ideas. And blessed's entire post.

[ThreeBeans]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

Huh. That hasn't been my experience....that my kids think it's "fun" to do things they're not supposed to.

Well, isn't that special.


Consider yourself...ah...blessed...that you have naturally compliant children.

Some kids (like my eldest) are limit pushers at every opportunity.

[monkey's mom]

Ouch.

My kids are far from "compliant." I've read and reread Raising Your Spirited Child many times. (They're cooperative, but not so much compliant.)

But how I chose to see their behavior is up to me. So it really hasn't been my experience that my kids are just doing things they know are wrong b/c that's a fun thing to do. They might be *having fun* doing things that they know are wrong for various other reasons.....but not just for the fun of it.

Like I said, I'm generally looking past the behavior and toward the reason why. So a 2 yr. old standing in a high chair just doesn't strike me as a child willfully flouting the rules for fun.

[purple_kangaroo]

One thing Alfie Kohn says in Unconditional Parenting is that we should attribute the best possible motives to a child's actions--or at least the best possible motives that honestly fit the circumstances. It made sense to both DH and me.

I do this in the rest of life, too, as much as possible. Usually there is more than one possible interpretation for what a person meant by something or why they did it. There's really no good reason to constantly assume the worst possible motivation for a person's actions when there is a more benign motivation that is likely. "Love is not easily offended."

We found this really relevant in dealing with bedtime with our kids. We made a conscious decision to stop viewing their difficulty going to sleep through a lens of disobedience or rebellion and started viewing it, instead, through a lens of--well, difficulty going to sleep. We were then able to, at least for the most part, leave behind the power struggles and much of the frustration (for both parents and children) behind.

Suddenly, instead of focusing on how to make the kids lie down in bed and be quiet even though they weren't sleepy, we were focusing on how to help the kids get more calm and sleepy. It works so much better.

There was really no good reason to assume that the kids were not falling asleep because they were trying to make our lives difficult or because they enjoyed misbehaving, yet because of our culturally and experientially-ingrained views of children, that was our first impulse as parents. Really, it was so much more obvious and sensible to think that the kids were not falling asleep because they were not sleepy. Even adults have trouble falling asleep sometimes, and it's not because they are being rebellious. KWIM?

Personally, I have trouble sitting still. I fidget a lot, play with my hair, fiddle with stuff, etc. because it's hard for me to sit still and be inactive--I just have to be moving or doing something, even as an adult. I often have to get up and stretch my legs or back because of my pain levels, as sitting still for long periods of time becomes very painful for me due to back & neck issues and circulation problems. But I can guarantee you my difficulty sitting still is not for attention or because I think it's fun to disrupt others.

[chfriend]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

Well, isn't that special.


Consider yourself...ah...blessed...that you have naturally compliant children.

Some kids (like my eldest) are limit pushers at every opportunity.

Mine are not naturally compliant either.

Maybe it works this way: You set limits, your kids push them.

I work to find solutions that work for everyone. My kids work to find solutions that work. Not every time, but mostly. No one that knows them thinks of them as compliant.

Last night my 3 year old, who was crazy tired and overstimulated from stressful grandparent visiting and the homeschool science fair and an aggressive playmate was at dinner at Red Lobster with the grandparents et al., asked me to take her outside when she'd finished eating. Which I did. Even though I had not eaten my dinner. Even though the grandparents think that's insane. Because she had done everything she could reasonably pull off in one day.

It was intensely sweet looking at the death row lobsters and figuring out which benches outside were wet from the rainstorm.

I could have "set a limit" for her and told her to stay in her seat (actually she was eating on my lap) until I was ready to go. But we just approach things differently in our family.

You might make a different choice with a different result. Perhaps your result would not have disturbed any patrons either. And yet I would not find it necessary to sacastically say "Isn't that special" about your relationship with your children.

[chfriend]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Remove the stimulus, and suddenly getting cooperation gets a hella lot easier

I'm confused about your use of the word "stimulus." Could you clarify what you see as a "stimulus?"

Can you explain what is fun about doing things "you aren't supposed to."

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.

Exactly. If the OP's "punishment" worked, I would guess it's because he got the chance to stretch his legs, even if it was by having to go outside and sit on the curb for two minutes.

[ThreeBeans]

Originally Posted by chfriend

I'm confused about your use of the word "stimulus." Could you clarify what you see as a "stimulus?"

Can you explain what is fun about doing things "you aren't supposed to."

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.

Actually, I think you understand just fine, and are smugly circling around in a bizarre merry go round of parental superiority, but for a moment I'll play your little game.


The 'stimulus' is the restaurant, being the center of attention, having all eyes on you. Other patrons responses to your behavior. The responses of other children. Etc.

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.

I'm not the person you were asking, but I think everyone agrees that sometimes it's fun for kids to do things their parents don't want them to do. But I don't think it's necessarily true, or fair to the kids, to automatically assume that they think it's fun simply because they aren't supposed to do it.

Did you see my example above about perceiving kids not falling asleep because they weren't tired vs. kids not falling asleep because they were choosing to disobey an order to fall asleep?

Do you truly not see a difference between a kid standing up in a chair because he's two and he's tired of sitting, and there are a lot of exciting things going on that he wants to be a part of, vs. because he knows you don't want him to stand up in the chair and he thinks it's fun to disobey you? Kids actually can do things like that for other reasons than because they are purposely trying to disobey or get under your skin.

[ThreeBeans]

I am so not the person you want to accuse of being insensitive or blind to her kids' needs and moods. Really.

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

I am so not the person you want to accuse of being insensitive or blind to her kids' needs and moods. Really.

I certainly hope you don't think that was my intent. Because it wasn't.

I know that *I* have a tendency to attribute motives of desiring to be disobedient or wanting to rebel to my kids, because that's how our culture tends to view children. I'm learning that, in most cases, there are other explanations for the behavior that shed a much different light on their motivations. I'm trying to learn to give my kids the benefit of the doubt and not take their misbehavior as a personal affront to myself--or that my kids are "out to get me", trying to make my life difficult, or enjoying disobedience for the sake of disobedience.

I shared how this has affected my parenting because it seemed to fit into the conversation, and I thought someone (you, another poster, a lurker, whoever) might find it interesting and/or helpful or might wish to interact with the idea.

And I must admit that I found your implication that anyone who chooses not to attribute such motives to their children is trying to raise "automatons" to be slightly offensive. The fact that I think my kids are generally doing things I don't want them to do because they find them appealing for other reasons besides that I don't want them to do them, does not mean I am trying to raise atomatons instead of children.

Why does it bother you that someone would suggest there could be motivations other than that "it's FUN to be doing things you aren't supposed to do" for a child's behavior?

[blessed]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

Why does it bother you that someone would suggest there could be motivations other than that "it's FUN to be doing things you aren't supposed to do" for a child's behavior?

I think because the original contention was that our advice about handling the situation nonpunitively was not applicable to her child's case. Because her child was a misbehaving child, and needed/deserved to be punished.

Is that it?

[monkey's mom]

Goodness.

I truly don't understand how one can view the two year olds' behavior as just being "bad" for the fun of it. There's surely something more going on there. How could there not be, is my thinking.

And that was my initial confusion....if you've got a child who can't comply with, "Sit, you're in a high-chair," but can with, "Sit, you're in time-out," that's confusing to me. My kids wouldn't "just comply" with either (b/c likely there would be other stuff going on, like needing to change scenery or being uncomfortable, etc.). If the underlying needs were met, then they'd *cooperate*--but that's different than complying just b/c I said so (and I can't imagine my kids doing a time-out just b/c I say so--especially if they were angry).

So, yeah, no automatons here. Willful, stubborn, regular ol' kids. Who I fully believe are doing the best they can and not trying to manipulate me or be deliberately contrary.

[SimpleJoys]

I am a mom of five, three sons, one daughter, one stepson. I have a grandbaby that goes out to eat with me at times. I don't allow her to stand up in the high chair. It is dangerous. I don't allow her to hit either. Or scream or throw things.In the past, I have taken my children outside to sit on benches when they have misbehaved at restaurants and other places. I have stayed with them as the op did. When they were ready to come back in, we came back in. I have never dragged a child by their arm. I find these posts very unenlightening as they seem to assume wrongdoing automatically on the part of the op rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was doing what she thought was right in a particular situation. I also always brought toys and games for the kids and tried to keep them pleasantly occupied.

I have also been accused of abuse and had the security guard called on me once when I took my niece to a public restroom to play in the water there (as a pp suggested might be a fun alternative to TO). I was splashing a little of the water up onto her lower face and neck as she was hot and sweaty and three guards with drawn guns burst in. They were very apologetic when they saw the real situation. There will always be those who do not have knowledge or appreciation of a situation that moms are going through at any one time. They will always say it wasn't handled properly or it wasn't done the right way. I have worked in child education my whole life and use TOs and see them as very valuable. Learning rules and ways of behavior that are socially acceptable are in the long run beneficial to us all. I had a friend once whose child was treated like some of the pps suggested, no time outs, just being entertained and cuddled and generally just allowed to do as he pleased, cause he was just a child and we adults needed to just gently guide him. At age 4 he brought a baseball bat down on top of my 6 month old child's head with all the force he could muster. Having good reflexes I was able to stop the bat about half an inch from his head. My hand was broken, my child could have been killed. I guess I'm old school, but children need and want limits and that includes when they are doing something dangerous like standing in a high chair, and doing something mean like hitting.

[chfriend]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

Actually, I think you understand just fine, and are smugly circling around in a bizarre merry go round of parental superiority, but for a moment I'll play your little game.


The 'stimulus' is the restaurant, being the center of attention, having all eyes on you. Other patrons responses to your behavior. The responses of other children. Etc.

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.

No I honestly didn't understand what you were saying. Our views of children seem to be pretty far apart.

If I'm understanding right, you believe that children enjoy doing things they are not supposed to do because they enjoy getting attention from strangers. Do I have that right?

I wrote a response to your accusation that I am being smug and raising automatons, but I've erased it under the assumption that you simply misunderstood.