On 2005-01-04 04:59:00, Perrigaud wrote:
"I still haven't gotten any good responses to my original question. What would you do if you tried:
1. Grounding your kid and they just don't abide.
2. Taking their car away: they sneak out or walk
3. Therapy: they lie, refuse to talk, or such.
4. Giving the Chores: They flat out tell you to go to hell.
5. Letting them do whatever: They break the law and you're responsible because they're underage and your the guardian.
*let me know if there are other options other than just legally emancipating them. Oh, and could you really do that?*"
Perrigaud---I'll give you a serious answer. It really depends on what else is wrong with the child. My daughter is bipolar. If she was off her meds my response would be entirely different from what I'd do if she was taking her meds.
If she was taking her meds, what I'd do would be to supervise her closely and cut privileges. You can't watch TV without mom's permission if the TV cabinet is locked with the plug inside.
New clothes matter to my daughter. I'd expect compliance to get them---but I'd expect it in small stages.
Part of the answer as a parent is you don't let it get that far. By the time a kid is doing all the stuff you're talking about, you've failed to control that kid for a long, long time.
You don't let it get that far.
Chores at our house are linked to concrete rewards. Our daughter gets an allowance. Each chore in it is concretely linked to a part of that allowance. If she doesn't do a particular chore, we make her go do it before we pay her.
We *do* spank, if we have to. My momma's motto of, "You're not too big to spank, you know." works for me. I can't remember the last time we actually had to spank---but she knows we will if we have to. So it's much easier to do her chore and go ahead and get her allowance. Even if we have to remind her.
She knows we don't give a flip if she *ever* gets to watch TV or play xbox again---so grounding from TV is *very* effective---especially as the TV may well be on, but it will be on something I want to watch (that, coincidentally, is either boring or somewhat interesting to her based on how much cooperation I'm getting---but it's totally unstated).
She gets *lots* of affection and approval and love for even small positive steps when she's in an oppositional mood. (I hate that term--so psychobabble--but it fits). Our daughter is bipolar---sometimes compliance isn't easy for her.
We give her a *lot* of freedom within limits. The rules are rarely if ever stupid rules, and *after* she does it I will almost always explain why it's important.
The key is that, as a parent, you *don't* let your kid "win" oppositional battles.
There's an old saying from the military, "Never give an order you *know* won't be obeyed."
If you don't allow oppositional behavior to win in the first place, but you *do* allow polite requests and reason to win, frequently, even if it's sometimes against your better judgement (and you explain why, in advance)---what you get is *occasional* fits of opposition to see if you still mean it, and frequent resort to calm reason.
Part of how I handle opposition, since my child is bipolar and her brain can get "stuck" in a groove, is I sit her down and discuss with her *why* she's so opposed to whatever it is. Then I discuss *why* I'm insisting on whatever it is. Then I try to come up with some third solution that meets my concerns while addressing hers.
This redirects the opposition into reasoning and negotiating behavior *and* doesn't let the oppositional behavior win---because the point I explain as vitally important gets taken care of, and the action on her part that gets rewarded is telling me *why* something bothers her and negotiating a workable solution---not opposition.
Sometimes I have to insist because we don't find a third way---but the *process* is so frequently beneficial for her that usually at that point I've got her far enough past opposition that I don't have to threaten (or don't have to threaten much) to get compliance.
Consequences are *proportional*---but once she gets oppositional, I understand as a parent that I can no longer afford not to win. That doesn't mean she has to lose, but *she* knows that my position is that I can't afford not to win at that point.
Now if she were to flat out refuse to take her medication, the first line response is, "You can take the pills here and have it be over with, or we can go to the ER for a shot and you can be grounded from TV and get a spanking. Which way would you rather do this?"
If I absolutely couldn't get compliance, and she got violent about going to the ER for her meds, then I would have to hospitalize her. Bipolars off our meds can be dangerous. Taking her meds is *not* optional (although I *will* work with her and with her doctor as much as possible to minimize side effects).
But she'd only be hospitalized until she was stable. And when *my* kid is stable, she's not violent or oppositional---she's a pretty nice person.
If she *couldn't* be stabilized on medication so that she wasn't violent or dangerous, then she could have to stay hospitalized.
That's always a risk for her. It's always a risk for *me*. But it's a *low* risk, because we're good medication responders.
The thing is, the situation you've listed still leaves the parents with several tools, presuming a generic kid that *doesn't* have a mental illness:
1) Approval
Giving a kid/teen *genuine* approval for small positive steps when the kid is being a pill works wonders.
2) Reassurance
"You're being a hell of a pill right now. I like you and I love you, but right now you're being a hell of a pill. Could you please stop it? No? Well, I still like you and love you, even though I wish like anything you were acting better."
3) Withdrawal of privileges
A lot of stuff in the parental household, from car keys to television to the computer to new clothes to favorite foods to the telephone can be cut off as a privilege, with concrete physical enforcement the teen can't get around.
4) Consistency and reason
A kid of any age responds better when the rules are consistent and rewards and punishments proportional, and the rules are explained.
5) Worst things first
When you're managing a difficult kid, it works best to extinguish the most dangerous or most hazardous one or two behaviors *first*, and only work on one or two big problems at a time.
6) Dale Carnegie
Read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Use the strategies in it generously and genuinely. Kids can smell a fake a mile away.
7) Non-rescuing
If your kid does something illegal and gets arrested, wait a day or two before bailing him or her out of jail. Wait long enough for it to sink in that they screwed up and that this is real life, not a drill. Provide a lawyer so your kid gets due process---but don't get in the way of the real legal consequences for whatever your kid really did.
:cool: Acceptance of Reality
Teens are going to do things that turn their parents' hair white, and sometimes they don't survive adolescence. Compare what they're doing in proportion to what you did and other teens you knew did and accept a *realistic* level of risk, while doing your best to *reasonably* minimize risk. There *will* be a nonzero chance of any particular person you love getting killed in a car wreck any day they go out on the road. It's a higher chance for a teen. This is reality. Accept *reasonable* risk and don't try to wrap your kids in cotton wool.
In *my* case, either I or my kid could end up having to be *legitimately* committed. We both have bipolar disorder and it's a risk.
So I can't say "never"---and my husband coudn't say "never" on committing *me*.
I wouldn't commit my daughter for anything less than I would commit *me* for, if I could somehow be standing on the outside of myself and looking in.
The biggest problem I have with behavior mod programs is that *no* disciplinary system works without reason, consistency, and proportion.
Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness aren't very good substitutes for mature, independent judgement----which is what a reasoned, consistent, proportional system of persuasion, affection, rewards, and punishments nurtures in a child.
My beef with the programs is not so much that they exist---it's that so many of them are doing it *badly* and there aren't adequate external-to-the-program safeguards in place.
If my daughter was so stressed out being around me that *she* requested to be sent to a program to get a break from mom, and if they'd take her, we'd probably use Three Springs in Huntsville, AL.
*Voluntary* commitment is a whole 'nother kettle of fish from *involuntary* commitment.
As for our daughter doing something we'd be liable for, out of the blue when we're doing our best to use good parenting strategies, that's what homeowners' insurance is for.
Would I send my daughter away over sex? Not if she was using condoms. I *would* try to make sure she was stable and not hypersexual from the bp.
Would I send my daughter away over alcohol or other drugs? Not if it was casual use. I'd handle it by presenting the real and substantial risks of worsening her illness to her. If it was addiction, I'd try outpatient rehab and, if I felt it was necessary, try to persuade her to go to inpatient rehab.
I would make it impossible for her to safely keep drugs in my house by regularly searching the house and destroying such substances and discarding paraphernalia. She might do it, but she wouldn't do it or keep it under *my* roof. And if she got caught, she'd take the legal consequences after a fair trial or a fair plea bargain.
(In my daughter's case, again, the *first* thing would be making sure her meds were right and she was stable.)
Theft or vandalism I'd require her to confess and make restitution, or I'd turn her in and let her get a fair trial or plea bargain and take her lumps.
Violence, I'd involuntarily commit.
Domestic abuse by a boyfriend I'd first act to prevent by having her avoid dating whiners, and second act to stop by prosecution and/or restraining orders (again, checking to make sure her meds were right). I'd third act to eliminate by moving too far away for her to sneak out and get to him, and a restraining order to keep him from coming close enough to meet up with her. I'd pick us all up and move three states away before I'd involuntarily commit her over that, though.
Sorry this is so long, but you asked a complicated question, and I'm sure I *still* haven't addressed all the possibilities.
In essence, you almost seem to be trying to build a false alternative situation by, "But what if that didn't work" approach.
Therapists encounter "Yes, buts" a lot when they deal with a client that doesn't really want to change. Ninety-nine percent of the time, if you *try* the reasonable options, you get a situation that is enough improved that you can live with it.
The *other* one percent of the time, the situation degrades until it's *clearly* in the "dangerous to self or others" category.
The trick is that good parenting skills means knowing all your tools and how to use them.
If you as a parent have a good handle on your *own* head (and if you don't have one, you'd darned better get one), your tools are adequate.
The phrase, "A poor workman blames his tools." applies.
On the other hand, if your kid is genuinely seriously mentally ill and can't be stabilized, you do the same thing you'd do with an adult in the same situation.
Timoclea
