Accused of abuse - Page 4

[thechuzzle]

Thanks

I wanted to say thank you all for your comments and advice. Part of my reaction I know was due to the fact that hormones levels are high and tend to make me quite emotional when pregnant. I was upset at her, but as many pointed out at least she was willing to stand upfor what she believed was a child being injured. Whether she was right or wrong, at least she was willing to take that step forward where many would not, and maybe one day she will truly be able to help a child who was in a bad situation.

Many have asked why I did not carry him out, well the more pregnant I become, the more I am encouraging the older two to walk when they need to get somewhere. Had he been hurt or truly needed consoling I would not have hesitated tp ick him up and carry him, but in this situation I felt it fine to have him walk from the restuarant.

As for all those worried about the amount of time that we ask children to sit still at the table, that day was 25 minutes from start to finish. We have a system and I find it works well. One of us keeps all 6 kids outside where they can run around in the grass and be noisy while the other goes inside, gets a table, orders drinks and meals, and puts out the kids toys, coloring books and fruit that we bring them to eat first. That way by the time we sit them down their food is usually never more than 10 minutes behind their arrival at the table. We left the resturant 25 minutes after we sat the kids down, and they had ample opportunity to run off energy as we went to lunch after having had them at the park for over an hour. I would never expect a child to sit longer than 30 minutes without a break and never would ask them to sit if they had not had the opportunity to expand their natural energy first.

For all of those of you that follow a very strict policy of not using "no" and do not use time outs and so on, congratulations to you. That does not stictly work here. We have 4 things that will earn you cool down time and one of those is hitting. Had his only problem been the standing in the chair, I would have just rearranged the rest of teh table to put him next to me so that I could constantly remind him that we sit in chairs, and that they are for our tush not our feet. But when he escalated it to hitting, that is when he needs to me removed. Following the fact that many look at it as a time out, I do seperate him from the situation, but at no time do I seperate him from myself. He just needed to cool down, and then he could talk about why he needed it and then he could tell me when he was ready to go back in, and that is all it took to calm him for the rest of the meal. No screaming, no yelling, no harsh words, or threats, and no breaking of his spirit, just a gentle reminder of appropriate behavior.

Also for those that felt that maybe he was hitting an age to not go out to eat anymore, I say bologna to that. How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares) .

Thanks all again, it was great to read all of your comments and really made me confident in the way I handled the accouser, and I was confident then and still am now that I did the right thing for my little man.

[chfriend]

thechuzzle, I do want to say Welcome to Mothering. I hope that you enjoy your time here.

I've learned a lot from the incredible mothers here.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares) .

I think it sounds like you're doing great and don't really need any advice.

However, I just want to say that I went out to eat probably three times between the ages of 0 and 6, and I have wonderful restaurant manners. I hardly ever took my dd to restaurants, but now when I do, she doesn't stand in the chairs. I say this because your exercise at the restaurant sounds unneccesarily stressful (at least for me). I just don't think kids and restaurants mix and saying that if you don't take toddlers out to eat they'll never learn how to behave is like saying if you don't make your 3 month old walk they'll never be able to. It's just so much easier to teach things to kids when they're ready.

So I guess that was advice;0

[purple_kangaroo]

thechuzzle, I don't carry my kids either (unless it's REALLY necessary) as soon as they hit a point (around age 2 or 3) where they're too heavy for me to comfortably carry them. I have back problems. It's not worth me being in pain and therefore not as patient or as active unless there's a really good reason why the child needs to be carried. Instead, I'll hold their hand or go more slowly or try to meet their needs in other ways whenever possible. It's all about balancing everyone's needs, IMHO.

It sounds like you work very hard to have a system that works for the kids, and to be sensitive to their needs. I personally also have my kids take a break to cool down/calm down when they hit someone, too, although I know there are those here who don't agree with that.

I do take my kids to eat at restaurants at all ages, and we do a lot of going for walks and distracting. I do use seatbelts in high chairs if they won't stay sitting down. We have maybe once, if that, had a situation where we ended up needing to leave because we couldn't work with the child to help everyone be able to enjoy a meal out with minimal disruption to other diners. Some parents find it works better to not go out much when the children are at certain ages or developmental stages; others are able to work around it and still go out to eat without too much trouble.

It's great that we can all learn from each other and from all the differing approaches and ideas.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by blessed

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?

That's how it's reading to me, but that's not compatible with other things I've seen from ThreeBeans, so I'm going to assume I'm missing something.

[blessed]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

It's great that we can all learn from each other and from all the differing approaches and ideas.

Agreed.

thechuzzle, we have always eaten at restaurants with dd; about once or twice a week is our typical.

At age two we found it necessary for her to be seated next to me and she required my help to stay focused. We took lots of walks, brought diversionary toys, so forth. She stood in her chair plenty of times, and I tried to respond with understanding and redirection.

It would have broken my heart to punish her over something as natural and expected as that behavior was for a toddler. If I had punished her, I think her natural reaction would have been frustration. And pretty much, a frustrated two year old hits. They don't have much in the way of a repertoire of ways to express their needs or emotions at that age.

So it seems sort of predictable and unnecessary - and very sad - that the whole encounter went down the way that it did. Maybe it wasn't abuse (and I don't think that it was), but I'm just tossing out there that I understand why the women witnessing the event found it disturbing.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by angilyn

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 don't think anyone's saying that the OP was abusing the child. Actually, I know I posted first off that the person who yelled at the OP was horrible.

The discussion is now more general about "what can we do when (when not if) our kids act up in restaurants?" Which is very reasonable in a post to the Gentle Discipline forum. If the OP just wanted to vent about the obnoxious woman, the toddler forum or TAO would have been better options. This forum is aimed at discussing parenting strategies.

The correct response, as demonstrated in post #61 by the OP, to advice phrased politely is "thank you."
Might be "thank you, but I don't see that solution working for me."
Might be "thank you, that's perfect and I'll be sure to use it."
And yes, posting about a parenting issue in the GD forum is a request for a discussion, including things that can be perceived as advice, about the issue.

[sapphire_chan]

I know that from the time my little brother was 2 until he was like 7 the four of us rarely had a full meal together in a restaurant. First mom would be out for 10 minutes with him, then they'd be back inside for 10, then dad would be out for 10, then back in for 10, and when I was older I would take a turn too. Not every time, but often enough that I can remember it happening even though I was all of 8 years old.

So 30 minutes feels like a long time to me.

ETA:
He wasn't climbing on chairs or throwing food or anything like that, just squirmy and needing physical activity. And at age 7, we'd often sit near a window so he could play on the grass in sight of the window for some time alone.

[GooeyRN]

I don't think you did anything wrong. If he can't act appropriately in the restaurant, he can't stay in the restaurant until he can.

[blessed]

Depending on your viewpoint, there's not anything 'wrong' with a swat on the bum. Or yelling. Or scolding. Or sending to bed without supper. Or time-outs. After all, a skinny 90 lb man can make a 2 ton elephant 'behave' and do what he wants it to do with similar types of methods. It's amazing how malleable the psyche of a living creature is.

But I think we can do better than that on a gentle discipline forum.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

As for all those worried about the amount of time that we ask children to sit still at the table, that day was 25 minutes from start to finish. We have a system and I find it works well. One of us keeps all 6 kids outside where they can run around in the grass and be noisy while the other goes inside, gets a table, orders drinks and meals, and puts out the kids toys, coloring books and fruit that we bring them to eat first. That way by the time we sit them down their food is usually never more than 10 minutes behind their arrival at the table. We left the resturant 25 minutes after we sat the kids down, and they had ample opportunity to run off energy as we went to lunch after having had them at the park for over an hour. I would never expect a child to sit longer than 30 minutes without a break and never would ask them to sit if they had not had the opportunity to expand their natural energy first.

I have to be honest, I'm kind of emotionally exhausted just reading that! I can't imagine going through all that just to eat out. I guess I'm lazy.

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

Also for those that felt that maybe he was hitting an age to not go out to eat anymore, I say bologna to that. How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares) .

Actually, I have first hand experience that it in fact can work like that (and my kid is not a pinnacle of compliance). We stopped taking my son out to eat when he was about 17 months - we were in a steakhouse and while he was fine for about 10 minutes, the next 10 minutes were excruciating trying to keep him from screaming and getting out of his chair while we gobbled our food and grabbed the check and ran out the door , etc. So we just stopped. Neither of us had the emotional reserves to do that with any regularity, as we both have pretty high expectations of public behavior (we don't let our kids down to walk around, or stand on chairs or booths to talk to other patrons, etc. ) The next time we went out to eat was after our daughter was born, it was our anniversary so that means that DS was then, um, 32 months. He hadn't been out to a restaurant in that entire intervening time (19 months total). He sat for the entire meal from appetizers to dessert, and didn't cause any ruckus. He asked a couple times if he could get up, and we just said no, and he stayed put. As I mentioned above, DS is not a calm child by nature. Since then we've been out to eat maybe 5 more times (over a span of nearly 2 more years), and every one of those times he's been fine. When your kid hits that developmentally appropriate age, he hits it whether he's been practicing how to sit in a chair out in public or not. And IMO it's way less aggravating to not have to bring bags of toys and preordering and running them around outside just to 'practice' eating out, or taking turns eating while the other entertains the kids (which I've also heard people say they do on other threads like this). We practiced table manners at home, and table manners are table manners, no matter where you are. I really have a hard time believing any 7-yo is going to stand on a chair and want to run around a restaurant, unless they weren't being taught any manners at *all*, and then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, and it's not practicing eating out.

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

For all of those of you that follow a very strict policy of not using "no" and do not use time outs and so on, congratulations to you.

Actually, I don't think anyone here has said they never say "no" to their children; most of us are just taking issue with the nature of traditional time outs where there is a timer sent and the child is ignored (both of which are things you specifically mentioned in your OP). I do physical separations and cool down times when we have aggression issues, but they're open-ended as soon as the child calms down they can rejoin play, and I don't ignore them, I am kind of calmly present in case they need help processing things. There is a distinct difference in the tone of a traditional time out and a "cool down" time IN kind of thing, and I think that's what many of us are taking issue with, especially since the child in question is 2 and this is so appropriate age wise. Many parents are concerned that if they're doing something at 2 and you don't extinguish it ASAP, they'll still be doing it at 6, 7, 8...but I've seen many times that so long as the child is being taught and guided to more apropriate behaviors, as soon as their brain catches up, the issue resolves on its own - so my idea is why not work WITH them through it to replace it with the more appropriate behavior, insted of working *against* them trying to extinguish it punitively.

Originally Posted by natensarah

I hardly ever took my dd to restaurants, but now when I do, she doesn't stand in the chairs. I say this because your exercise at the restaurant sounds unneccesarily stressful (at least for me). I just don't think kids and restaurants mix and saying that if you don't take toddlers out to eat they'll never learn how to behave is like saying if you don't make your 3 month old walk they'll never be able to. It's just so much easier to teach things to kids when they're ready.

So I guess that was advice;0

[dubfam]

Originally Posted by Janelovesmax

I have to ask something, perhaps a dumb question, but I feel like the OP removed her son from potentially even more diffucult situation, if she didn't remove him, he could have started crying or hitting even more and OP responded in the timely manner. Additionally, OP called it a "time-out", but she also walked out with a child outside (obviously) and sat next to him, to me that sounds more like a way to "cool-off", more of a "time-in", does anyone else see it that way?
I feel like "time-outs" is when you remove and separate your child from yourself in a certain part of the room, where he is separate from everyone, including the person who is giving the time-out.

A "Time In" requires you to interact with the child. Not ignore them. She seperated herself by ignoring him, even if she was physically "right there".

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

So I calmly proceeded over to his chair, removed him from it and took him by the hand and led him from the restaurant, in a timely fashion. When we got outside I placed him next to the bench in the corner for timeout and I sat next to him, paying no attention to him, while I set my watch timer for two minutes.

Originally Posted by thechuzzle

Following the fact that many look at it as a time out, I do seperate him from the situation, but at no time do I seperate him from myself. He just needed to cool down, and then he could talk about why he needed it and then he could tell me when he was ready to go back in, and that is all it took to calm him for the rest of the meal. No screaming, no yelling, no harsh words, or threats, and no breaking of his spirit, just a gentle reminder of appropriate behavior.

By "Paying No Attention To Him" You are separating yourself from him.



.

[Janelovesmax]

Originally Posted by dubfam

A "Time In" requires you to interact with the child. Not ignore them. She seperated herself by ignoring him, even if she was physically "right there".





By "Paying No Attention To Him" You are separating yourself from him.



.

I was hoping someone will reply. I think I missed the part where she wrote" I didn't pay attention to him". Yes, in that case, it is a time-out.

Also - I think I understand OP about bringing children to restaurant. Although I agree with everyone else that when a child is ready for restaurant, he is ready - but what if you have more then one child. Do you not go to restaurants when you have older children because the younger ones are not ready? Isn't it kind of unfair to older children especially if they enjoy the trip and enjoy eating out?

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by Janelovesmax

Do you not go to restaurants when you have older children because the younger ones are not ready? Isn't it kind of unfair to older children especially if they enjoy the trip and enjoy eating out?

I guess since we go out to eat so rarely in sit down restaurants anyway (we do it maybe 4-5 times a year), it's not that big a sacrifice/unfair in my eyes....and we can eat in places that aren't sit down now, like Mall food courts and fast food places : I guess I figure we do so many enjoyable, fun things that for the year or so we have to stay away from restaurants until DD gets to a developmental stage where she can sit, we can do many other fun things that DS wants to do. He would NOT find it fun to be rushed through a meal, or to have me hav eto leave with DD to take her to the car and then finish the emal without us, so us going out with her when she's not ready to be in a regular restaurant wouldn't technically be enjoyable for him. So we take them to Chuck E Cheese, or to the mall, or to Wendy's. Not the most nutritious places, but he gets a little 'eat out' fun, without all the hassle.

[chfriend]

My kids would rather go to the inflatable bouncy place than a restaurant...and picnicing *is* eating "out."

Food is many things: community, family, nutrition, tradition all bound up together. Ya don't need a restaurant for that!

And making a big pot 'o noodles and a salad and eating it somewhere beautiful is a great day. Kids and adults of all ages enjoy preparing it and eating it.

I've sometimes really enjoy taking my 7 year old out to dinner "just us" or sending her with dp "just them" for a special dinner out.

[marybethorama]

You handled it perfectly

That lady is totally irrational

ETA: I do understand that not everyone agrees with time outs but I think there is more than one way to discipline and I'm okay with the difference here.

[j924]

[QUOTE=blessed;11260594]

It would have broken my heart to punish her over something as natural and expected as that behavior was for a toddler. If I had punished her, I think her natural reaction would have been frustration. And pretty much, a frustrated two year old hits. They don't have much in the way of a repertoire of ways to express their needs or emotions at that age.



She didn't punish for being bored or even for standing. She brought him outside after he hit her. He was cooling off so that the hitting would stop. OP I think you did a fine job with the original situation. Often when you have a group of children it is a differnt ball game than keeping one child happy at a restaurant. From your description of how your outings usually work, it sounds like you are doing a great job for all the kids.

[SheBear]

Hugs to the OP! I'm sorry you had to deal with the situation--both the toddler and the stranger! I don't know about you, but I HATE being confronted in public, esp. by a total stranger who makes no attempt to be polite/quiet/discreet. Even if I feel totally confident that my parenting behavior has been flawless, I still get twitchy when confronted, and my mind goes blank, my face gets hot, my ears ring, and it is just so not pretty! I feel exactly the same way as I feel after narrowly avoiding a car accident!

Which, really, a confrontation like that between two adults is pretty much always a trainwreck, don't you think? I mean, if her intent was to protect the child from harm, but she was yelling and in the face of the child's care-giver, what sort of feelings did that arouse in the child? I doubt that he felt very protected or safe watching his protector being yelled at. And if her hope was to get you to handle whatever she objected to in the situation differently next time, then I as to how she thought being belligerant was going to accomplish that. If she truly felt the child was in danger of abuse, then IMHO, she had no business approaching you at all--she should have gone straight to the athorities and asked them to immediately deal with the situation. She should have known that confronting someone who is truly mistreating a child (or an animal, or elderly person!) is the very best/quickest way to make them escalate the abuse, in retaliation.

So, apparently she didn't *really* think abuse was occurring, but rather just thought that throwing the word out there would serve you right for not agreeing with her, or not reacting to her accusations in the way she expected.

Anyway, I think her behavior, as you described it, was appalling, and totally ineffective. Even if you had been literally dragging the child through the restaraunt, her behavior was not appropriate. Saying something, asking you calmly and quietly to treat the child gently--that would have been appropriate, and much more likely to be effective. OFFERING TO HELP would have been super helpful, understanding, and compassionate, showing that she has BTDT and understands that caring for children can be very frustrating at times. That would have put her in a position to offer advice in a kind, caring way, a way that would have allowed you to be safely vulnerable with her, and given you both the opportunity to bond while seeking a way to solve the problem with/for the child.

It seems to me a shame that she chose to just get angry at you instead. What a wasted opportunity!

Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that their children are actually their opponents? My goodness, how sad is that?

If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the real opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!

GO TEAM!!

[pandora665]

Originally Posted by SheBear

It seems to me a shame that she chose to just get angry at you instead. What a wasted opportunity!

Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that their children are actually their opponents? My goodness, how sad is that?

If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the real opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!

GO TEAM!!

Thanks for this post. I so appreciate both the message and the wonderful way it was presented. Time outs as a team effort instead of the "penalty box".

[dubfam]

Originally Posted by SheBear

Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that their children are actually their opponents? My goodness, how sad is that?

If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the real opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!

GO TEAM!!

FANTASTIC post

This is one of the best things I have read here in a while


.