And the Other Shoe Dropped (Part 2)
Jennifer
had had alcohol and cigarettes at our house. He left a message, but BM
didn't call back until SD was at her house, crying in the background.
BM left two messages...let's see, the first one is her saying very snottily,
"SD just arrived. I understand you're withholding some of her belongings.
Unfortunately, you haven't paid for all that stuff, and if you can't pack it
up and put it on the front porch, we will take whatever action is necessary
to get it out of your house, and that includes to calling cops, going to
court, whatever it takes. This is absolutely ridiculous, that is not your
stuff. I suggest you pack it up and put it on the front porch." Then she
calls back and says it all over again.
Realize that these items we're "withholding" are simply SD's usual
belongings here that we didn't let her pack up. She took all her school
bags and supplies, plus her regular purse, and her car keys. If she chooses
to take off in anger, after verbally and physically abusing us, that's not
something we're going to address by setting her other things out at the
front door.
DH called BM and, not because he cares about what she thinks, but because he
wanted her to have all the information (and would want that information in
return if the tables were turned), he explained about the alcohol, the
cigarettes, the attempted discipline and SD's response. BM didn't sound
thrilled that SD had done that, but she still insisted that SD's stuff
belongs to her and DH just *has* to put it out. She "doesn't want to have
to call the police."
DH just stayed calm and said they disagreed, but that BM has to do what BM
has to do. He agreed to put out what he felt was necessary, which BM said
was inadequate, but oh well. He just finished changing the lock on the
front door, and he's putting SD's driver's license & cell phone (which BM
said belongs to her, not SD) in a bag on the front door. IF the police come
by, I will laugh. Please...some nice couple (that's DH and me) explain that
a 17yo had a party with illegal substances, and Dad just wanted to ground
the kid for 4 school days, and the kid cursed & screamed & took off, and the
kid's entitled to her clothes and CDs at Dad's house? Um-hmm. Right. If
that happens, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Or, if it happens (the police
actually feel for SD, lol), then without a warrant, there's no stuff going
anywhere. :-)
If BM needs to pursue this, unless SD apologizes for her behavior and
accepts the discipline DH expected her to take, then they can try getting
some judge somewhere to say SD has a right to those items. If she does,
well, okay. But BM will have spent more money and time collecting some
jeans & CDs than I think is warranted. Her call.
You know what? While DH and I are not thrilled that BM won't back us up on
enforcing discipline for something wrong that SD did, it's no surprise.
It's the way things have gone for years, and it's why SD thinks she *can* do
something like this. Better to have SD with BM then, rather than spreading
poison in this household with her behavior, language and unwillingness to
abide by our rules. SD can grow up, things can settle down, etc. BM is
supposed to come by soon to get the items, which, again, are only the cell
phone and driver's license.
DH is going to call SD's friends to inform them about the party, and
apologize. Other than that, well, things will happen as they happen. Just
thought I'd let you all know that we're SD-less for the foreseeable future.
Jennifer
The Watsons
"Jennifer" <JenPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uQ2dnYgIgMu...@comcast.com...
> DH called BM and, not because he cares about what she thinks, but because
he
> wanted her to have all the information (and would want that information in
> return if the tables were turned), he explained about the alcohol, the
> cigarettes, the attempted discipline and SD's response. BM didn't sound
> thrilled that SD had done that, but she still insisted that SD's stuff
> belongs to her and DH just *has* to put it out. She "doesn't want to have
> to call the police."
no, it belongs to whoever bought it....:)
> DH just stayed calm and said they disagreed, but that BM has to do what BM
> has to do. He agreed to put out what he felt was necessary, which BM said
> was inadequate, but oh well. He just finished changing the lock on the
> front door, and he's putting SD's driver's license & cell phone (which BM
> said belongs to her, not SD) in a bag on the front door. IF the police
come
> by, I will laugh. Please...some nice couple (that's DH and me) explain
that
> a 17yo had a party with illegal substances, and Dad just wanted to ground
> the kid for 4 school days, and the kid cursed & screamed & took off, and
the
> kid's entitled to her clothes and CDs at Dad's house? Um-hmm. Right. If
> that happens, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Or, if it happens (the police
> actually feel for SD, lol), then without a warrant, there's no stuff going
> anywhere. :-)
*snerks* dad tried this with sis, cops told him to tell it to a judge-they
enforced the custody order and that's all they were doing....:)
> DH is going to call SD's friends to inform them about the party, and
> apologize. Other than that, well, things will happen as they happen.
Just
> thought I'd let you all know that we're SD-less for the foreseeable
future.
good job....:)
Jess
Jennifer
news:6noib.23786$gi2.9786@fed1read01...
>
> "Jennifer" <JenPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ2dnYgIgMu...@comcast.com...
> > DH called BM and, not because he cares about what she thinks, but
because
> he
> > wanted her to have all the information (and would want that information
in
> > return if the tables were turned), he explained about the alcohol, the
> > cigarettes, the attempted discipline and SD's response. BM didn't sound
> > thrilled that SD had done that, but she still insisted that SD's stuff
> > belongs to her and DH just *has* to put it out. She "doesn't want to
have
> > to call the police."
>
> no, it belongs to whoever bought it....:)
SD bought some of those CDs, so likely they "belong" to her, but too bad.
If they want to go to court over that, it would be worth it just to hope
that the judge dresses SD down for her behavior both with the alcohol and
toward her dad and me. :-)
Jennifer
Anne Robotti
wrote:
>thought I'd let you all know that we're SD-less for the foreseeable future.
Great, I'll pack up my SD's stuff and have her there by Tuesday. You
have an extra room now, right, and it's already stocked with clothes
and CD's?
Anne
Wendy
I disagree. If you give someone something, it becomes theirs.
Wendy
Jennifer
news:bmdgqe$v1o$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Not with children. :-) Interestingly enough, according to California law,
"although most parents allow their child to keep money he or she has earned,
parents do have a legal right to these wages." The exceptions are if the
child has applied for emancipation, if the child's income is the result of
being a child star or young star athlete, and if the child's income is the
result of a gift or inheritance.
We have a right to provide food, clothing and shelter for our children, but
that does not mean that the children have a right to own those things that
have been provided to them (e.g., the house).
I'm going to check with my friend, a Maryland lawyer, not that I think it'll
get to that point...still, if it does, I'd like to know the law. "Courts
have felt that children who remain at home are under the authority of their
parents, therefore weakening their privacy rights with regard to their
rooms, and items in their rooms." This is, again, from California law.
Jennifer
Wendy
> Not with children. :-) Interestingly enough, according to California
law,
The law is irrelevant to my point. If I give someone a birthday present,
the fact that I bought it doesn't make it mine. It was a gift and becomes
theirs. To treat a child's possessions any differently from anyone else's,
strikes me as absurd.
Wendy
Jennifer
Not to me. :-) We've always communicated to our children that they live
here due to our largess...and as long as they abide by the household rules,
they're granted all the rights and privileges, too.
You probably also don't believe that a parent should ever take a child's
door off its hinges, while I think that's fine. And you probably don't
believe in a parent removing & keeping items of clothing that are left on
the floor, while I think that's fine. Etc. We don't agree about parenting
now, nor have we in the past, and our ideas about children's privacy are
completely dissimilar.
As DH and I talked about, though, the right of a parent to have authority
over his child is typically paramount. While you might say, "Oh, grounding
a 17yo for having alcohol at a party at the house" is overkill, I disagree.
DH disagrees. Maybe others disagree. Who knows? What's important is that
you, as a parent, stand by your principles. I expect you to stand by yours,
and DH proudly stands by his. I'm *VERY* proud of him.
Jennifer
Me
Jennifer wrote:
>
>
> Not to me. :-) We've always communicated to our children that they live
> here due to our largess...and as long as they abide by the household rules,
> they're granted all the rights and privileges, too.
>
> You probably also don't believe that a parent should ever take a child's
> door off its hinges, while I think that's fine.
Chuckle. Been there, done that. Several times with SD. First time was
after she decided that her bedroom window was a good door at 2 am, and
the cops brought her home.
> And you probably don't
> believe in a parent removing & keeping items of clothing that are left on
> the floor, while I think that's fine. Etc. We don't agree about parenting
> now, nor have we in the past, and our ideas about children's privacy are
> completely dissimilar.
>
> As DH and I talked about, though, the right of a parent to have authority
> over his child is typically paramount.
And after they turn 18, as long as they are living in your house, and
you are providing their financial support, they have to follow your
rules. That's the point SD could not agree to. She figured as soon as
she was 18 she could do whatever she damn well pleased.
> While you might say, "Oh, grounding
> a 17yo for having alcohol at a party at the house" is overkill, I disagree.
> DH disagrees. Maybe others disagree. Who knows? What's important is that
> you, as a parent, stand by your principles. I expect you to stand by yours,
> and DH proudly stands by his. I'm *VERY* proud of him.
>
What most people don't realize is how emotionally straining all this is.
You're proud, but I bet you are also emotionally exhaused.
Wendy
> Not to me. :-) We've always communicated to our children that they live
> here due to our largess...and as long as they abide by the household
rules,
> they're granted all the rights and privileges, too.
So, if your mother moves in because she needs a place to stay, would your
largess extend to rights of ownership of her possessions?
> You probably also don't believe that a parent should ever take a child's
> door off its hinges, while I think that's fine.
Now that's you making assumptions about what I think and nothing to do with
anything I've ever expressed. However, I can't imagine what a child could
do which would warrant constant surveillance and complete lack of privacy,
unless you were trying to help them kick a heroin habit.
And you probably don't
> believe in a parent removing & keeping items of clothing that are left on
> the floor, while I think that's fine. Etc.
You're right, I'm not nearly so controlling as you. I try to get my
children to want to have clean rooms, because it's easier not to let it get
to a point where the task of cleaning it is overwhelming and they can't find
what they need.
We don't agree about parenting
> now, nor have we in the past, and our ideas about children's privacy are
> completely dissimilar.
Sure, undoubtedly, but if you post to this newsgroup, others will tell you
when they don't agree with you.
> As DH and I talked about, though, the right of a parent to have authority
> over his child is typically paramount. While you might say, "Oh,
grounding
> a 17yo for having alcohol at a party at the house" is overkill, I
disagree.
> DH disagrees. Maybe others disagree. Who knows? What's important is
that
> you, as a parent, stand by your principles. I expect you to stand by
yours,
> and DH proudly stands by his. I'm *VERY* proud of him.
Of course you are, that's also irrelevant to what I posted. My point is
that once they reach 17 it isn't about your authority, but about their
exercising responsibility. Grounding is like saying you are a child and I'm
going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
responsibility, and consequences of actions.
Ask yourself what grounding her actually solves, apart from in this
particular case escalating the conflict.
Wendy
Me
Wendy wrote:
> Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
>
>
It is much easier to have a conversation with a brick wall than with my
SD. Any conversation of that sort just shut her down, she's only reply
with "I hate you," "you're being mean," etc. She wouldn't hear a thing.
That's why we resorted to writing her notes instead. Her BM would always
threaten her with consequences, but never followed through (she lived
with BM for the first 17 years). So she learned that threats were
meaningless and just ignored them. Then when we told her that specific
actions would have specific consequences, she ignored that too. When the
consequences came about she became verbally abusive and attempted to
show by her behavior that we couldn't tell her what to do. That's why
she's not living with us anymore.
Julie
rebecca
>
> Of course you are, that's also irrelevant to what I posted. My point is
> that once they reach 17 it isn't about your authority, but about their
> exercising responsibility. Grounding is like saying you are a child and
I'm
> going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
>
> Ask yourself what grounding her actually solves, apart from in this
> particular case escalating the conflict.
Wendy, I agree it's about the child exercising responsibility, but I do
think if the child fails to do that, you have an obligation as a parent to
do something. So was the goal to stop the unwanted behavior, or to exert
authority over the child? If it was to stop the behavior, I think it might
have been more effective to (a) call the other kids' parents to report what
happened (humiliating for a 17YO) and then (b) no more parties. The
grounding to me seems more designed to exercise authority.
But Jennifer and DH have 3 much smaller children, and with smaller ones, you
do sometimes have to establish/maintain your role as supreme authority of
all things. So I'm back to wondering if that's part of the problem.
rebecca
Geri and sometimes Brian
>when they don't agree with you.
IIRC, she had that disclaimer when she started the post of this story.
>Ask yourself what grounding her actually solves, apart from in this
>particular case escalating the conflict.
Breaking a house rule ---> negative consequence ----> the lesson learned
that is she wants to live in the house, she has to follow the rules or there
will be consequences she doesn't like. Pretty easy.
~~Geri~~
"It's Football Saturday at Memorial Stadium and 'There's No Place Like
Nebraska!!'"
www.nocartax.com
www.saveourlicense.com
The Watsons
> The law is irrelevant to my point. If I give someone a birthday present,
> the fact that I bought it doesn't make it mine. It was a gift and becomes
> theirs. To treat a child's possessions any differently from anyone
else's,
> strikes me as absurd.
past clothing, food, and shelter, a child's possessions are at the
discretion of the parents-and the parents can exercise that discretion based
on things like behavior, school performance, etc....i made the argument once
that my radio was *mine* because "you GAVE it to me as a birthday
present"....mom and dad's response was "and we allow you to live here,
too-remember that".....and i still lost it for whatever it was i did (prolly
mouthing off ;)....:)
SO's argument is that bratling moved into her mother's house so she can get
away from rules she doesn't like...but just because she's moving away from
rules she doesn't like doesn't mean that she can keep things that make her
life easier or more pleasant (obviously the conveniences, not the mandatory
food, clothing, shelter, love, etc)...behavior dictates what she does and
doesn't get....
Jess
The Watsons
> Of course you are, that's also irrelevant to what I posted. My point is
> that once they reach 17 it isn't about your authority, but about their
> exercising responsibility.
um, i'll disagree with that-it's my house, and if you're in it, you'll abide
by the rules i set down-and yes, i've kicked my own mother out for not
abiding by the rules i've set down....
Grounding is like saying you are a child and I'm
> going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
where's the consequence again? i must've missed that....:)
> Ask yourself what grounding her actually solves, apart from in this
> particular case escalating the conflict.
if she's 17, then she understands that there are consequences (including
being grounded), and if she really wanted to be the adult, she'd sit down
and discuss it in a civilized, calm, adult fashion with her parents instead
of throwing a tantrum....
Jess(and my Mike, too:)
Jennifer
>
> "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bmemkv$v4j$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Of course you are, that's also irrelevant to what I posted. My point is
> > that once they reach 17 it isn't about your authority, but about their
> > exercising responsibility.
>
> um, i'll disagree with that-it's my house, and if you're in it, you'll
abide
> by the rules i set down-and yes, i've kicked my own mother out for not
> abiding by the rules i've set down....
ROFL! Yup, that's how our kids are raised. It's not YOUR room, it's your
(small letters) room in OUR house. Treat it well & ya get to keep it. ;-)
Jennifer
Vicki Robinson
> Grounding is like saying you are a child and I'm
>> going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
>> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
>
>where's the consequence again? i must've missed that....:)
The consequence is loss of trust. My sisters and I agree that my
parents' most potent weapon was the phrase "I'm so disappointed in
you. I thought you knew better." Oh. My. God. That would have
killed us in ways that a 1000 weeks of grounding wouldn't have
touched.
Grounding us felt like a fine for speeding. OK, I know it was wrong,
I got caught, I'll pay the price, next time I'll be smarter about
getting caught. But to think that they thought less of me? That they
didn't trust me anymore? That they were *disappointed in me*? I
can't even tell you how that would have struck at my very soul.
Those are consequences that stick.
Vicki
--
"Washingtonians, however, always drive like old people with trunks
full of babies, and the roads lined with Golden Retreiver puppies."
Rick Tyler muses on the demographics of driving on AFU
WhansaMi
reaction".
First of all, he immediately said, "Boy, she got off easily with four days of
grounding for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes! My friends get 2 weeks
of grounding for a couple of C's!" Once he heard that she said "No, that won't
work for me", he looked at me incredulously and then opined that if his kid
behaved like Jennifer's SD did after she was told of the grounding, that he
would ground the kid for at least two months.
My favorite part, though, came when I told him that some people in here thought
that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have talked to
SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for her,
he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that I
could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
Sheila
Anne Robotti
>My favorite part, though, came when I told him that some people in here thought
>that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have talked to
>SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for her,
>he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that I
>could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
Well, you've got him trained, congratulations. I guess.
Anne
WhansaMi
>thought
>>that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have talked
>to
>>SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for
>her,
>>he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that I
>>could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
>
>
>Well, you've got him trained, congratulations. I guess.
>
>Anne
Thanks! Although, he was taught, not trained. As DD once put it, "I'm not a
dog!" :-)
Sheila
Geri and sometimes Brian
>Thanks! Although, he was taught, not trained.
Indeed. Congratulations from me, too! Well done! :-)
rebecca
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031013204048...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> My favorite part, though, came when I told him that some people in here
thought
> that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have
talked to
> SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for
her,
> he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that
I
> could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
Well, how very judgemental of you both. What's wrong with involving a child
in their own discipline? What authority are you giving up as a parent by
saying, "oh, you don't think that's a good punishment? What would you
suggest?" I'll tell you, Sheila, my 7YO SS _always_ suggests harder
punishments than we would ever come up with on our own. At the very least,
Jennifer's DH might have gotten an interesting insight into how seriously
his daughter felt her violation of trust was, and he could have made a
better point about his disappointment in her. At best, maybe she would have
confessed the trip with BM and he could have made some headway on the whole
college issue.
Involving a child in the discussion in no way equates to putting that child
in charge, and it doesn't mean that the child is an equal to the parent.
rebecca
Me
rebecca wrote:
>
>
> Well, how very judgemental of you both. What's wrong with involving a child
> in their own discipline?
They are involved. They are on the receiving end of it. :)
> What authority are you giving up as a parent by
> saying, "oh, you don't think that's a good punishment? What would you
> suggest?"
A lot, in our case. It just gives SD an invitation to start the verbal
abuse about what a bad parent he is, how much she hates him, etc.
Complete with plenty of swear words.
> I'll tell you, Sheila, my 7YO SS _always_ suggests harder
> punishments than we would ever come up with on our own.
We did ask SD to come up with something after her second speeding ticket
plus one at fault accident in the space of 6 weeks. What she came up
with was inconsequential. Fortunately BM felt the same way, one of the
rare occasions when DH and BM agree.
The Watsons
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:bmfga5$rm6$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, "The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> said:
>
> > Grounding is like saying you are a child and I'm
> >> going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
> >> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
> >
> >where's the consequence again? i must've missed that....:)
>
> The consequence is loss of trust. My sisters and I agree that my
> parents' most potent weapon was the phrase "I'm so disappointed in
> you. I thought you knew better." Oh. My. God. That would have
> killed us in ways that a 1000 weeks of grounding wouldn't have
> touched.
"i don't trust you to be on time and adhere to your curfew, so you're
grounded until i see some change in your behavior"-THAT put my ass in
gear....a lecture? naah....:)
mike is equating a lecture with a time out-"oh, i gotta listen to a lecture,
ok"..."oh, wow, they're disappointed in me now, until i bring in a good
grade or something and then they'll respect me again"....
> Grounding us felt like a fine for speeding. OK, I know it was wrong,
> I got caught, I'll pay the price, next time I'll be smarter about
> getting caught. But to think that they thought less of me? That they
> didn't trust me anymore? That they were *disappointed in me*? I
> can't even tell you how that would have struck at my very soul.
> Those are consequences that stick.
i guess...didn't work for either sis or i....and it worked on sunshine, as
long as there was something else to back it up-"until i think you can be
more respectful, you can spend the day in your room"....
i just don't think a lecture alone works...i think you have to follow
through with something concrete....
Jess
Kathy Cole
> AnneR:
> >Well, you've got him trained, congratulations. I guess.
>
> Thanks! Although, he was taught, not trained. As DD once put it,
> "I'm not a dog!" :-)
It wasn't a compliment, Sheila.
WhansaMi
>>
>> Thanks! Although, he was taught, not trained. As DD once put it,
>> "I'm not a dog!" :-)
>
>It wasn't a compliment, Sheila.
Oh, well. I think it is! :-)
Sheila
WhansaMi
>
>
>~~Geri~~
Thanks. He's a great kid. Both of 'em are. :-)
Sheila
jane
>could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
>
>Sheila
Acorn. Tree.
jane
WhansaMi
Yeah.... I'm so PROUD. :-)))))
Sheila
heather m.
thought
> that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have
talked to
> SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for
her,
> he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that
I
> could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
>
> Sheila
You wouldn't be calling us bad parents would you?
Heather
heather m.
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1LIib.222$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Involving a child in the discussion in no way equates to putting that
child
> in charge, and it doesn't mean that the child is an equal to the parent.
>
> rebecca
Well said Rebecca.
Heather
Geri and sometimes Brian
You should be! Hopefully when he is an adult, he will also not be one of those
parents who let their kids run wild. Always a good thing.
Wendy
> too-remember that".....and i still lost it for whatever it was i did
(prolly
> mouthing off ;)....:)
If the school confiscates a mobile phone, or a piece of jewellry from a
child, that doesn't change whose possession it is, nor the fact that they
have to return it at the end of the term. Why would you perceive that as
different for parents?
Wendy
Wendy
> Wendy, I agree it's about the child exercising responsibility, but I do
> think if the child fails to do that, you have an obligation as a parent to
> do something.
Of course you are, where have I suggested not? I still maintain that it's
more important for them to recognise how they've failed themselves and
others, than that they are punished for the infraction.
So was the goal to stop the unwanted behavior, or to exert
> authority over the child? If it was to stop the behavior, I think it
might
> have been more effective to (a) call the other kids' parents to report
what
> happened (humiliating for a 17YO) and then (b) no more parties. The
> grounding to me seems more designed to exercise authority.
I agree.
> But Jennifer and DH have 3 much smaller children, and with smaller ones,
you
> do sometimes have to establish/maintain your role as supreme authority of
> all things. So I'm back to wondering if that's part of the problem.
But you know, you can't always guess what conclusion younger children are
going to draw from an incident and having age appropriate rules shouldn't
compromise what's acceptable for the younger ones.
Wendy
Wendy
> parents' most potent weapon was the phrase "I'm so disappointed in
> you. I thought you knew better." Oh. My. God. That would have
> killed us in ways that a 1000 weeks of grounding wouldn't have
> touched.
>
> Grounding us felt like a fine for speeding. OK, I know it was wrong,
> I got caught, I'll pay the price, next time I'll be smarter about
> getting caught. But to think that they thought less of me? That they
> didn't trust me anymore? That they were *disappointed in me*? I
> can't even tell you how that would have struck at my very soul.
> Those are consequences that stick.
Just so, Vicki, just so. There was a situation recently in which my OD made
a bad choice and had to deal with some pretty heavy consequences. She knew
how I felt, and the fact that I drove her places to sort it out and waited
for her when she came out reinforced it in ways my having punished her never
would have.
Wendy
Wendy
> "i don't trust you to be on time and adhere to your curfew, so you're
> grounded until i see some change in your behavior"-THAT put my ass in
> gear....a lecture? naah....:)
I think you've missed the point if you think that this is about a lecture.
There's nothing worse in my mind than losing the trust and respect of the
people I love. Why would teenagers be any different? Trust and respect
aren't things that can be rebuilt after a day in a room.
Wendy
The Watsons
you're right-it's still mine because *I* paid for it...i allow our child to
use it, but it's still *mine*...
Jess
The Watsons
> I think you've missed the point if you think that this is about a
lecture.
> There's nothing worse in my mind than losing the trust and respect of the
> people I love. Why would teenagers be any different? Trust and respect
> aren't things that can be rebuilt after a day in a room.
That's the point, teenagers are not adults yet, at best they are
'proto-adults', their whole purpose at this point is to push limits, learn
boundaries. Right now, their respect for their parents is at its lowest,
they are SURE that they know everything that their parents know and Know it
BETTER. If you are real lucky, you have a teen that goes through this phase
fairly quickly and move into the adult world. THEN they begin to respond to
respect and trust. And last, this time period is not like when you or I grew
up, these days teens lose their respect for their parents earlier and don't
gain it back until later - mostly in my opinion because there are those out
there that delight in giving these teens excuses for their actions - be it
no father, low income, etc. A lecture and voicing your regret at their lack
of trustworthiness isn't going to do anything; there has to be some type of
concrete punishment (grounding, lose of allowance, something) if this
component is missing then the teen learns nothing.
But thats just my opinion,
Mike
you're right, trust and respect can't be rebuilt in a day....i don't
consider a teen mouthing off, not including me in anything but still
expecting me to be a paycheck, and just generally breaking every house rule
we have here very respectful-the priviliges they have here are at our
discretion, and if they expect to keep 'em, they need to do things to earn
them.....either that, or they can get out there and support themself if they
dislike our home so much....:)
Jess
Jennaii
>
>You should be! Hopefully when he is an adult, he will also not be one of
>those
>parents who let their kids run wild. Always a good thing.
>
>~~Geri~
I agree. Nod Nod Nod.
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
Jennaii
>
>Heather
No. I think it's ok to parent in different ways. If being told by Dad, "I'm
disappointed in you" is all it takes for a kid to snap to attention and change
his ways I think THAT's great parenting too.
Unfortunately it doesn't work for everyone.
Jennaii
>
>Anne
>
And if Dad says "I'm so disappointed in you" and the kid rolls over and plays
dead what is that?
Different parenting techniques work for different people.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> Jennifer wrote:
<snipped>
> > And you probably don't
> > believe in a parent removing & keeping items of clothing that are left on
> > the floor, while I think that's fine. Etc. We don't agree about parenting
> > now, nor have we in the past, and our ideas about children's privacy are
> > completely dissimilar.
> >
> > As DH and I talked about, though, the right of a parent to have authority
> > over his child is typically paramount.
>
> And after they turn 18, as long as they are living in your house, and
> you are providing their financial support, they have to follow your
> rules. That's the point SD could not agree to. She figured as soon as
> she was 18 she could do whatever she damn well pleased.
>
It's like renting. If you wish to remain in the home, you have to
follow whatever rules the owner of the home puts into the rental
agreement. OS(15) didn't like it when I told him, "My house, my
rules. When you're grown, out on your own, and supporting yourself,
you get to make your own house rules, based on your landlord's
guidelines. While you live in my house, you follow my rules."
> > While you might say, "Oh, grounding
> > a 17yo for having alcohol at a party at the house" is overkill, I disagree.
> > DH disagrees. Maybe others disagree. Who knows? What's important is that
> > you, as a parent, stand by your principles. I expect you to stand by yours,
> > and DH proudly stands by his. I'm *VERY* proud of him.
> >
>
> What most people don't realize is how emotionally straining all this is.
> You're proud, but I bet you are also emotionally exhaused.
Maybe it's the weather? Or the season? Is it just me, or are there a
few of us going through the same type of thing ATM?
Kitten
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> "Jennifer" <JenPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gumdnSCLUvH...@comcast.com...
<snipped>
>
> > As DH and I talked about, though, the right of a parent to have authority
> grounding
> > a 17yo for having alcohol at a party at the house" is overkill, I
> disagree.
> > DH disagrees. Maybe others disagree. Who knows? What's important is
> that
> > you, as a parent, stand by your principles. I expect you to stand by
> yours,
> > and DH proudly stands by his. I'm *VERY* proud of him.
>
> that once they reach 17 it isn't about your authority, but about their
> exercising responsibility. Grounding is like saying you are a child and I'm
> going to punish you. Whereas I'd have talked to them about trust,
> responsibility, and consequences of actions.
>
> particular case escalating the conflict.
Wendy,
My problem with that is that I've BTDT. I talk responsibility,
self-control, and self-discipline until I'm blue in the face.
Sometimes it gets to the point where you have to take action. When
the child is hurting the entire household, it's time to put a stop to
it, IMO. There comes a time to say, "No more."
Kitten
heather m.
"Jennaii" <jen...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031014055335...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> >You wouldn't be calling us bad parents would you?
> >
> >Heather
>
> No. I think it's ok to parent in different ways. If being told by Dad,
"I'm
> disappointed in you" is all it takes for a kid to snap to attention and
change
> his ways I think THAT's great parenting too.
Of course it is, I agree with you. But lets say you haven't even tried
that? And also, if you know your kid well enough, you know what works, and
it's doubtful you'd even get to such a boiling point. Nobody is saying she
doesn't need consequences for what she's done. But step back, take a look
at the big picture (not just this incident) and it's plain that a few people
have been off and communication has gone awry and people have been getting
their feelings hurt. I would much, much rather solve the problem then just
treat the symptoms. My kid didn't choose to be brought into this world,
it's my job to guide him and listen to him plus discipline him and *admit it
if I've gone wrong somewhere in our relationship*. That will make him
respect me a hell of alot more and see that I am human not the Perfect
Parent God. ;)
Heather
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
In our house, it is the same. The possession remains in *our* room
for the specified period of time. For us, many times that period of
time is determined by the teen's willingness to repair the damage
they've done, whether they've broken something and have to fix/replace
it or they've hurt someone and have to repair the relationship.
Kitten
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> >You wouldn't be calling us bad parents would you?
> >
> >Heather
>
> No. I think it's ok to parent in different ways. If being told by Dad, "I'm
> disappointed in you" is all it takes for a kid to snap to attention and change
> his ways I think THAT's great parenting too.
> Unfortunately it doesn't work for everyone.
>
>
Exactly!! And in one household, each kid may very well require
different parenting techniques. One child may respond to, "I'm
disappointed in you," while the other says, "Yeah? So what? Big
deal."
I've got four kids in the house who all respondly. I've got to deal
differently with each one of them. There has to be consistency
running through the discipline requirements, but different ways of
approaching issues with each child.
Kitten
heather m.
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message >
>
For us, many times that period of
> time is determined by the teen's willingness to repair the damage
> they've done, whether they've broken something and have to fix/replace
> it or they've hurt someone and have to repair the relationship.
>
> Kitten
Nothing wrong with that. But you just recently went through something where
OS was feeling hurt, right? I believe ya'll had a long talk or something
where OS got to voice his feelings and Chewy found it a little hard to take
but took it anyway right? Jennifer stated that they don't care and they're
not going to. It's one thing if *they* feel hurt, but quite another if she
is. It's awful if DH feels hurt about being excluded from the college
process, but they could give a shit if SD feels hurt about *anything* going
on in her crazy life. Jennifer has made it clear that they have never made
any mistakes whatsoever in raising SD. I'd like to know who's supplying the
perfect pills, because I definitely want to start taking them.
Heather
Geri and sometimes Brian
>any mistakes whatsoever in raising SD.
Malarkey.
heather m.
Yes, and that's exactly what alot of people here are trying to convey.
Heather
tina smith
parent support group and we do not allow our kids to rule our households
anymore. This organization turned our family's teen situation 90 degrees.
When we found cigarettes in my daughter's room, we took her door off until
she earned it back--her attitude changed and she earned her door back.
Parents who have 16 & 17 year olds that run away from home get in trouble
with the law because the law states that we are responsible for our teens
until they are 18. So if our teen gets out of control and leaves, we cannot
keep them out, we have to take them back in so that they can continue their
destructive behavior. This isn't fair. Sending our daughter to teen living
facility was out of the question due to our finances; therefore, we made our
home a teen living facility. We took the bedroom door off, limited phone
calls, put her to work and limited her curfew. This worked very well. She
started being more respectful towards us. I believe, though she did not want
to admit it, she need those boundaries because she did not trust herself to
set them.
Before you allow SD back into the house, you and your husband need to come
up with 5 rules (only five because a teens memory is not very good and more
rules would be overwhelming). The five rules that I have for my house are:
1)must obey all State, City & Federal laws (this would include no drugs, be
home by curfew allowed by the City, no cigarette use for teens, no
vandalism, etc....) 2)must give 24 hrs for privileges (she wants to go to
someone's house, movies, etc...) 3)must be respectful (no foul language, no
lying, etc...) 4)must stay in school 5)must continue counseling.
"Jennifer" <JenPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uQ2dnYgIgMu...@comcast.com...
> Well, DH felt that BM deserved a phone call to tell her that their
daughter
> had had alcohol and cigarettes at our house. He left a message, but BM
> didn't call back until SD was at her house, crying in the background.
>
> BM left two messages...let's see, the first one is her saying very
snottily,
> "SD just arrived. I understand you're withholding some of her belongings.
> Unfortunately, you haven't paid for all that stuff, and if you can't pack
it
> up and put it on the front porch, we will take whatever action is
necessary
> to get it out of your house, and that includes to calling cops, going to
> court, whatever it takes. This is absolutely ridiculous, that is not your
> stuff. I suggest you pack it up and put it on the front porch." Then she
> calls back and says it all over again.
>
> Realize that these items we're "withholding" are simply SD's usual
> belongings here that we didn't let her pack up. She took all her school
> bags and supplies, plus her regular purse, and her car keys. If she
chooses
> to take off in anger, after verbally and physically abusing us, that's not
> something we're going to address by setting her other things out at the
> front door.
>
> DH called BM and, not because he cares about what she thinks, but because
he
> wanted her to have all the information (and would want that information in
> return if the tables were turned), he explained about the alcohol, the
> cigarettes, the attempted discipline and SD's response. BM didn't sound
> thrilled that SD had done that, but she still insisted that SD's stuff
> belongs to her and DH just *has* to put it out. She "doesn't want to have
> to call the police."
>
> DH just stayed calm and said they disagreed, but that BM has to do what BM
> has to do. He agreed to put out what he felt was necessary, which BM said
> was inadequate, but oh well. He just finished changing the lock on the
> front door, and he's putting SD's driver's license & cell phone (which BM
> said belongs to her, not SD) in a bag on the front door. IF the police
come
> by, I will laugh. Please...some nice couple (that's DH and me) explain
that
> a 17yo had a party with illegal substances, and Dad just wanted to ground
> the kid for 4 school days, and the kid cursed & screamed & took off, and
the
> kid's entitled to her clothes and CDs at Dad's house? Um-hmm. Right. If
> that happens, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Or, if it happens (the police
> actually feel for SD, lol), then without a warrant, there's no stuff going
> anywhere. :-)
>
> If BM needs to pursue this, unless SD apologizes for her behavior and
> accepts the discipline DH expected her to take, then they can try getting
> some judge somewhere to say SD has a right to those items. If she does,
> well, okay. But BM will have spent more money and time collecting some
> jeans & CDs than I think is warranted. Her call.
>
> You know what? While DH and I are not thrilled that BM won't back us up
on
> enforcing discipline for something wrong that SD did, it's no surprise.
> It's the way things have gone for years, and it's why SD thinks she *can*
do
> something like this. Better to have SD with BM then, rather than
spreading
> poison in this household with her behavior, language and unwillingness to
> abide by our rules. SD can grow up, things can settle down, etc. BM is
> supposed to come by soon to get the items, which, again, are only the cell
> phone and driver's license.
>
> DH is going to call SD's friends to inform them about the party, and
> apologize. Other than that, well, things will happen as they happen.
Just
> thought I'd let you all know that we're SD-less for the foreseeable
future.
>
> Jennifer
>
>
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<snipped>
> it's my job to guide him and listen to him plus discipline him and *admit it
> if I've gone wrong somewhere in our relationship*. That will make him
> respect me a hell of alot more and see that I am human not the Perfect
> Parent God. ;)
>
You don't live with OS. He gets mad whenever it becomes apparent that
Chewy isn't perfect. He knows damn well that Chewy's not perfect and
that he's made mistakes. It makes him angry. But he also is quite
willing to use the mistakes Chewy has made as a bludgeoning weapon
against Chewy and against me.
Kitten
Jennaii
>not going to. It's one thing if *they* feel hurt, but quite another if she
>is. It's awful if DH feels hurt about being excluded from the college
>process, but they could give a shit if SD feels hurt about *anything* going
>on in her crazy life. Jennifer has made it clear that they have never made
>any mistakes whatsoever in raising SD. I'd like to know who's supplying the
>perfect pills, because I definitely want to start taking them.
>
>Heather
I've never heard Jen say they were perfect parents. And you really don't think
they aren't concerned about her well being, do you???
Oh yes, I know you can go *google* up stuff where they said they didn't care
yada yada yada but if they *TRULY DIDN'T CARE* why would they even bother? Why
would they have bothered for the last SEVENTEEN years?
They're mad / SD is mad, but don't keep pushing this thing about them not
giving a shit about SD because you know that isn't backed up by the facts.
heather m.
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
> You don't live with OS. He gets mad whenever it becomes apparent that
> Chewy isn't perfect. He knows damn well that Chewy's not perfect and
> that he's made mistakes. It makes him angry. But he also is quite
> willing to use the mistakes Chewy has made as a bludgeoning weapon
> against Chewy and against me.
>
And I never said that that was right. He is a *teenager* (as you know) and
you handle him wonderfully. You listen, your husband listens, you apologize
(if it's appropriate) and I'm sure the kid apologizes for stuff he's done.
You all compromise and he gets heard, ya'll get heard, discipline is
administered. Most importantly, you *care* what's bothering him, do you see
where I'm getting at? Jennifer and her DH do not care nor do they wish to
hear what's bothering SD.
I would never condone using guilt as a weapon. And if anything, come to
think of it, I'd say that's exactly what Jennifer and her DH are doing to
SD.
I would never think to apologize to someone if I didn't care. And why
should the SD in this case care? She should be careful not to hurt her
Dad's feelings (re: college, etc.) but if he hurts hers then oh well get
over it? I don't know if I'm getting this out right...you are concerned
about what's on your OS's mind, they could care less what's on SD's mind.
You and your husband work on your relationship with your son, they don't
work on their relationship with SD because it's not important to them.
Heather
Wendy
> That's the point, teenagers are not adults yet, at best they are
> 'proto-adults',
Exactly, not children either.
> their whole purpose at this point is to push limits, learn
> boundaries.
Sure, and the surest way I know of to get them pushing at boundaries is to
build them so they don't flex or adapt to changing circumstance.
Right now, their respect for their parents is at its lowest,
> they are SURE that they know everything that their parents know and Know
it
> BETTER. If you are real lucky, you have a teen that goes through this
phase
> fairly quickly and move into the adult world. THEN they begin to respond
to
> respect and trust. And last, this time period is not like when you or I
grew
> up, these days teens lose their respect for their parents earlier and
don't
> gain it back until later - mostly in my opinion because there are those
out
> there that delight in giving these teens excuses for their actions - be it
> no father, low income, etc.
Respect is something that is earned, not given to someone automatically
because of their position. Please note that respect and common courtesy are
two different things.
I've earned more respect from my children by my willingness to listen, my
willingness to apologise and my willingness to support them in their life
choices and the consequences thereof, then I have from any status as their
parent.
A lecture and voicing your regret at their lack
> of trustworthiness isn't going to do anything; there has to be some type
of
> concrete punishment (grounding, lose of allowance, something) if this
> component is missing then the teen learns nothing.
You're harping back to the concept of a lecture, which is not what I've said
at all. The concrete punishment of betraying trust is to lose that trust.
Grounding a 17 year old will just ferment all the resentment about the
treatment they are getting. So for four days they seeth, put up with a
constraint and then forget about it. While in my grand scheme of things,
rebuilding the trust takes time and they deal with the consequences until
it's been rebuilt. No fixed term. No punishment. Just consequence.
> But thats just my opinion,
And mine.
[Jess wrote:]
> you're right, trust and respect can't be rebuilt in a day....i don't
> consider a teen mouthing off, not including me in anything but still
> expecting me to be a paycheck, and just generally breaking every house
rule
> we have here very respectful-the priviliges they have here are at our
> discretion, and if they expect to keep 'em, they need to do things to earn
> them.....either that, or they can get out there and support themself if
they
> dislike our home so much....:)
Well marriage may not be until death do us part, but for me being a parent
is. I don't give up on them, that's how I demonstrate to them that you
don't run away from problems but hang in and deal with them.
Think about it, who is going to ground them next year when they make bad
choices while away at University?
Wendy
heather m.
"Jennaii" <jen...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> I've never heard Jen say they were perfect parents. And you really don't
think
> they aren't concerned about her well being, do you???
> Oh yes, I know you can go *google* up stuff where they said they didn't
care
> yada yada yada
That's hilarious.
but if they *TRULY DIDN'T CARE* why would they even bother? Why
> would they have bothered for the last SEVENTEEN years?
> They're mad / SD is mad, but don't keep pushing this thing about them not
> giving a shit about SD because you know that isn't backed up by the facts.
>
I'll push whatever I choose, and but then again I can admit it when I'm
wrong, so I'm not too scared to push an issue. I like this forum, I learn
from these discussions.
When you are unwilling to even *look* at your actions to see if you
*possibly* went wrong somewhere then you are assuming that you have
unquestionable actions. Sounds like perfection to me.
I am sure they care in the sense of their responsibility to feed and clothe
her, but she's already stated twice that they don't care what SD is going
through emotionally.
Heather
Anne Robotti
>>Well, you've got him trained, congratulations. I guess.
>>
>>Anne
>>
>
>And if Dad says "I'm so disappointed in you" and the kid rolls over and plays
>dead what is that?
>Different parenting techniques work for different people.
Well, since none of my kids just roll over and play dead no matter
what I do, I wouldn't know. But neither would I want them to. They
keep me honest when they don't.
Anne
Wendy
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031013204048...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> My favorite part, though, came when I told him that some people in here
thought
> that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have
talked to
> SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for
her,
> he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that
I
> could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
No surprise that you've misrepresented what some people have been saying.
Besides a 14 year old would expect terms suitable to a 14 year old. In this
case, we're talking about a 17 year old who is going off to university next
year.
Wendy
Wendy
> Involving a child in the discussion in no way equates to putting that
child
> in charge, and it doesn't mean that the child is an equal to the parent.
Well said.
Wendy
Wendy
"Jennaii" <jen...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> No. I think it's ok to parent in different ways. If being told by Dad,
"I'm
> disappointed in you" is all it takes for a kid to snap to attention and
change
> his ways I think THAT's great parenting too.
> Unfortunately it doesn't work for everyone.
I can't recall anyone saying that that was all it took to do anything.
Wendy
Wendy
> where's the consequence again? i must've missed that....:)
The consequence of betraying trust is not to be trusted.
> if she's 17, then she understands that there are consequences (including
> being grounded),
Chances are she understands that her parents inflict punishments, but does
that mean she won't break the rules when she's on her own, or that she won't
just become better at hiding the evidence.
and if she really wanted to be the adult, she'd sit down
> and discuss it in a civilized, calm, adult fashion with her parents
instead
> of throwing a tantrum....
You can't have a civilized, calm adult discussion with someone who is not
willing to treat you like an adult.
Wendy
Wendy
> you're right-it's still mine because *I* paid for it...i allow our child
to
> use it, but it's still *mine*...
I wouldn't want anything from someone who kept wanting to take it back.
Wendy
Wendy
> My problem with that is that I've BTDT. I talk responsibility,
> self-control, and self-discipline until I'm blue in the face.
> Sometimes it gets to the point where you have to take action. When
> the child is hurting the entire household, it's time to put a stop to
> it, IMO. There comes a time to say, "No more."
Of course, there are limits, and occasions to take action, but in this case
I see Jennifer and her DH blowing this way out of proportion.
Wendy
Wendy
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:454a033.03101...@posting.google.com...
> for the specified period of time. For us, many times that period of
> time is determined by the teen's willingness to repair the damage
> they've done, whether they've broken something and have to fix/replace
> it or they've hurt someone and have to repair the relationship.
I don't think I've suggested that confiscating something isn't appropriate
on occasion, but how does that translate into ownership changing with
possession?
Wendy
WhansaMi
>thought
>> that Jennifer and her DH were being unfair, because they should have
>talked to
>> SD about how she felt about it, and why that consequence didn't work for
>her,
>> he laughed until tears rolled down his face (literally). He told me that
>I
>> could quote him: "That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."
>>
>
>You wouldn't be calling us bad parents would you?
>
>Heather
Heather, I just got home from work and have managed to get through about 1/2 of
the posts left here today. I have to leave in a few minutes to take my kids to
their dad's. But, I'll quickly answer this one:
I have my own beliefs about parenting, which have served me quite well. Do I
think my approach is preferable to the other options? Sure, that is why I use
it; if I didn't believe it was, I'd use something else.
That might seem like I am "judging" others, but, you know, nothing I could
possibly say about anyone else's parenting skills would come close to the
judgementalness and... vitriol... I've been reading for the last half hour.
Many of you have totally blown this out of proportion, and the nastiness I'm
seeing from certain people here is really... well, disgusting.
Sheila
jane
>yada yada yada but if they *TRULY DIDN'T CARE* why would they even bother?
>Why
>would they have bothered for the last SEVENTEEN years?
I'm not saying they *don't* care, but motivations could include rivalry with
BM, not wanting to "lose" the battle over who's the better parent, fear of
looking bad in front of family and friends, tensions between the two of them,
etc.
jane
>Jennaii
heather m.
<snipped>
> That might seem like I am "judging" others, but, you know, nothing I could
> possibly say about anyone else's parenting skills would come close to the
> judgementalness and... vitriol... I've been reading for the last half
hour.
> Many of you have totally blown this out of proportion, and the nastiness
I'm
> seeing from certain people here is really... well, disgusting.
>
> Sheila
Right. You don't have to tell me about nastiness, I've already been
belittled for liking google (typical) and voicing my opinion, which alot of
others have done as well. I don't consider it nasty *at all* to disagree
with something or someone. I *do* consider it nasty when people take an
opinion they don't agree with and respond to it with sarcasm and cuss words
and become so personally offended that instead of helping me to see where
they are coming from they have to regress to the above mentioned.
Heather
>
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
<snipped>
>
> When you are unwilling to even *look* at your actions to see if you
> *possibly* went wrong somewhere then you are assuming that you have
> unquestionable actions. Sounds like perfection to me.
>
I've never known anyone unwilling to look at his/her own actions who
tried so hard to react calmly instead of yelling and going out of
control.
Kitten
WhansaMi
Heather, most of the nastiness I have read has been directed toward Jennifer
and her decisions. Perhaps you see things differently.
Sheila
Anne Robotti
wrote:
> I *do* consider it nasty when people take an
>opinion they don't agree with and respond to it with sarcasm and cuss words
>and become so personally offended that instead of helping me to see where
>they are coming from they have to regress to the above mentioned.
Oh shut the fuck up Heather, you think you know everything.
Love Anne
heather m.
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:dj0povorqgiss6ijb...@4ax.com...
Are you calling me a bad parent?
:-D
Heather
Vicki Robinson
>
>"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
>news:dj0povorqgiss6ijb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Oh shut the fuck up Heather, you think you know everything.
>>
>> Love Anne
>
>Are you calling me a bad parent?
>
>:-D
>
Nonono! You're supposed to say "Bite me, Bitch!"
Geez, how long have you been here?
Vicki
--
"Washingtonians, however, always drive like old people with trunks
full of babies, and the roads lined with Golden Retreiver puppies."
Rick Tyler muses on the demographics of driving on AFU
Anne Robotti
Robinson) wrote:
>Nonono! You're supposed to say "Bite me, Bitch!"
>
>Geez, how long have you been here?
You shut the fuck up too, I'm taking back control of the board.
Anne
The Watsons
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bmhdkc$lpe$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Think about it, who is going to ground them next year when they make bad
> choices while away at University?
academic probation? getting suspended or expelled from whatever
extracurriculars? losing financial aid?
i think all these are pretty concrete....:)
Jess
The Watsons
that's entirely up to you, but i'm still gonna maintain that i have the
right to deny privileges/access to those privileges when my
child/teen/whoever is living in my home and not adhering to the rules i/we
set down.....nothing "stealing" about it....:)
Jess
Jennifer
> self-control, and self-discipline until I'm blue in the face.
> Sometimes it gets to the point where you have to take action. When
> the child is hurting the entire household, it's time to put a stop to
> it, IMO. There comes a time to say, "No more."
Yup. This isn't occurring in a vacuum. We've had years of raising SD to
know better than to act like she did, and she knew she was so far out of
line it's not even funny. She and DH have had years of communication, and
she knows we'll listen when she has something to say, as long as she says it
in an appropriate fashion...and again, "listening" doesn't necessarily mean
"agreeing with what SD wants to happen."
Jennifer
Jennifer
news:bmh6a2$d9s$1...@home.itg.ti.com...
> Jennifer, have you heard of an organization called "Tough Love?" This is a
> parent support group and we do not allow our kids to rule our households
> anymore.
Thanks, Tina. :-)
> Before you allow SD back into the house, you and your husband need to come
> up with 5 rules
We have 1 rule to begin: she needs to apologize for her behavior to us, and
she also needs to apologize to her 3 siblings. I'll let her pass with the
dog. After that, we can see. :-)
Jennifer
Jennaii
>
>Anne
>
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
jane
>and her decisions. Perhaps you see things differently.
>
>Sheila
You know, though, disagreement is not the same as nastiness. And you've got to
distinguish between nastiness towards Jennifer and vehement disagreement with
and criticism of her decisions.
jane
Lurking Mel
>That might seem like I am "judging" others, but, you know, nothing I could
>possibly say about anyone else's parenting skills would come close to the
>judgementalness and... vitriol... I've been reading for the last half hour.
>Many of you have totally blown this out of proportion, and the nastiness I'm
>seeing from certain people here is really... well, disgusting.
But not at all surprising really. I mean, it's been going on for so long in so
many different threads aimed at specific people that the person involved clearly
does not like, and nobody ever calls that person on it, yet they're the first to
jump on other people who do it once in a blue moon.
Cryptic, huh? :)
Mel
Anne Robotti
wrote:
>But not at all surprising really. I mean, it's been going on for so long in so
>many different threads aimed at specific people that the person involved clearly
>does not like, and nobody ever calls that person on it, yet they're the first to
>jump on other people who do it once in a blue moon.
>
>Cryptic, huh? :)
Yup, nobody got that one, very mysterious.
Anne
heather m.
Heather
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:bmi1g8$ukc$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
heather m.
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031014201027...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Yea, I don't know *where* disagreeing vehemently with her turned into being
nasty. I don't understand why people post if they only expect positive
feedback. Really, I don't. It makes me wonder what the point is if you're
going to get so offended when people disagree with you and your views.
Maybe it's not so much the disagreeing, but the fact that some people like
to back up their point with facts or reasons, and maybe that's what people
get so irritated with. Oh well.
Heather
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
The child is *allowed* to have certain perks and priviledges while
living in the parents' house. Along with those perks and priviledges
come certain requirements and responsibilities. If one chooses to
shirk said requirements and responsibilities, one loses the associated
perks and priviledges.
It's pretty similar to a place of employment. The employer provides
certain perks and priviledges in exchange for the employee carrying
out the duties of the job. If the employee fails to carry out those
duties, the employee loses the perks and priviledges.
Kitten
The Watsons
that works too-mike was comparing it to a social contract....:)
Jess
Wendy
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:454a033.03101...@posting.google.com...
> living in the parents' house. Along with those perks and priviledges
> come certain requirements and responsibilities. If one chooses to
> shirk said requirements and responsibilities, one loses the associated
> perks and priviledges.
>
> It's pretty similar to a place of employment. The employer provides
> certain perks and priviledges in exchange for the employee carrying
> out the duties of the job. If the employee fails to carry out those
> duties, the employee loses the perks and priviledges.
Yes, but I've never felt I owned those. They've always been possessions of
my employer.
Wendy
Wendy
> academic probation? getting suspended or expelled from whatever
> extracurriculars? losing financial aid?
>
> i think all these are pretty concrete....:)
That will explain why almost every first year student I've ever known
doesn't do nearly as well in their first year as their high school results
suggested they would, because they're too busy kicking over the traces.
Wendy
Melissa
>Oh shut the fuck up Heather, you think you know everything.
>
>Love Anne
>
<Snicker> Anne got Heather good. <Snort>
Love,
Melissa
"What do we need a psychiatrist for? We know our kid is nuts."
-Homer Simpson
Melissa
>Yea, I don't know *where* disagreeing vehemently with her turned into being
>nasty.
Personally, I find all of the various <snort>s <shrug>s etc. to be far more
nasty than anything that's been said here.
Jennaii
>to back up their point with facts or reasons, and maybe that's what people
>get so irritated with. Oh well.
>
>Heather
>
If people stuck to "facts" I wouldn't mind. The truth has been stretched so
far out of proportion here that there is very little *truth* left.
Oh well.
Vicki Robinson
>If people stuck to "facts" I wouldn't mind. The truth has been stretched so
>far out of proportion here that there is very little *truth* left.
>Oh well.
I think that's because the discussion has become hydra-headed, and to
try to keep up and be clearly understood, people are making their
arguments simpler. Losing the nuances polarizes the positions, and
distorts them.
But that's what happens in a large, strongly-felt discussion. When
you have to read 50 posts before you post your own reply, everything
blends together into just a few salient points, and that's what you
reply to.
The Watsons
> In a previous article, jen...@aol.comnojunk (Jennaii) said:
>
> >If people stuck to "facts" I wouldn't mind. The truth has been stretched
so
> >far out of proportion here that there is very little *truth* left.
> >Oh well.
>
> I think that's because the discussion has become hydra-headed, and to
> try to keep up and be clearly understood, people are making their
> arguments simpler. Losing the nuances polarizes the positions, and
> distorts them.
>
> But that's what happens in a large, strongly-felt discussion. When
> you have to read 50 posts before you post your own reply, everything
> blends together into just a few salient points, and that's what you
> reply to.
paring into down into the basic essentials so you can keep up is fine, but
i'm having to reread even more carefully now because i can't be certain if
what i'm reading is a genuine question or whatever, or if i'm actually
seeing some sarcasm....
Jess
Vicki Robinson
>paring into down into the basic essentials so you can keep up is fine, but
>i'm having to reread even more carefully now because i can't be certain if
>what i'm reading is a genuine question or whatever, or if i'm actually
>seeing some sarcasm....
I don't have any problem with that. If I have to ask myself "Is that
sarcasm?" my rule is to assume that it's not. If it was, it will
become glaringly apparent soon enough.
heather m.
"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comevilspam> wrote in message
news:20031015000700...@mb-m21.aol.com...
Oh yea?? Well why don't you just quit pushing this bullshit issue!
<chortle>
Heather
Melissa
>sarcasm?" my rule is to assume that it's not. If it was, it will
>become glaringly apparent soon enough.
>
>Vicki
I've been known to ask.
Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye
WhansaMi
>got to
>> distinguish between nastiness towards Jennifer and vehement disagreement
>with
>> and criticism of her decisions.
>>
>> jane
>
>Yea, I don't know *where* disagreeing vehemently with her turned into being
>nasty. I don't understand why people post if they only expect positive
>feedback. Really, I don't. It makes me wonder what the point is if you're
>going to get so offended when people disagree with you and your views.
>Maybe it's not so much the disagreeing, but the fact that some people like
>to back up their point with facts or reasons, and maybe that's what people
>get so irritated with. Oh well.
>
>Heather
It isn't what is being said, it is HOW it is being said.
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
>>I don't have any problem with that. If I have to ask myself "Is that
>>sarcasm?" my rule is to assume that it's not. If it was, it will
>>become glaringly apparent soon enough.
>>
>I've been known to ask.
Yeah. But I don't want to come across as aggressive when I don't feel
aggressive, and there's no way to "sound" mild when you ask "Was that
sarcasm?" on Usenet.
The Watsons
yup, and the school is doing concrete consequences to follow the lecture on
trust/responsibility.....:)
Jess
The Watsons
> In a previous article, "The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> said:
>
> >paring into down into the basic essentials so you can keep up is fine,
but
> >i'm having to reread even more carefully now because i can't be certain
if
> >what i'm reading is a genuine question or whatever, or if i'm actually
> >seeing some sarcasm....
>
> I don't have any problem with that. If I have to ask myself "Is that
> sarcasm?" my rule is to assume that it's not. If it was, it will
> become glaringly apparent soon enough.
some of us do....:)
Jess
Wendy
> yup, and the school is doing concrete consequences to follow the lecture
on
> trust/responsibility.....:)
But it doesn't change their behaviour. *shrug*
Wendy, who has never heard of a university lecturing on trust and
responsibility
Melissa
>Oh yea?? Well why don't you just quit pushing this bullshit issue!
>
><chortle>
>Heather
:)