There’s a thread on Slashdot about setting rules for teen Internet access that’s garnered a lot of responses, most of which go along the lines of “let them have completely rules and string free 'Net access - otherwise you demonstrate you don’t trust them and you’ll cause more problems than you solve. If you’ve raised them right, it’s best to let them have independence and show that you trust them.”
Obviously, this sort of sentiment is best applied to kids who do not have a history of problems (like drug abuse) that you need to check up on them for, and to those above a certain age. My question is, what age should that be? And I’m not just talking about 'Net access, I’m talking in general - at what point should you say “I’ve done all I can do with my kids - except for some general household rules, I need to let them have their independence and make their own decisions”?
I don’t have children, and don’t plan on having them, so I’m not sure what I can say, but the thread made me curious.
Whenever they show that they can be trusted. That means it could be fairly young and then again it could be never. I have a 24 yo daughter that believes that being trusted is a right and that it has nothing to do with her actions. :rolleyes:
I’d say it really depends on what activity you’re talking about trusting a kid to do.
Riding his bike to the store? Eh, 8 to 12. Using the internet unsupervised? 12 to 14. Staying out all night? 15 to 17. Everything? 17 to 19. All assuming you don’t have any special reason not to trust him–something that would separate him from an “average” person his age–and all as inaccurate at the fringes as any age limit.
What Mr2001 said. I have a 16 year old and a 17 year old. The things I “trusted” them to do varied with age. Right now, I’ll even “trust” them to say at home alone for a long weekend. My husband and I went on a three day motorcycle trip – left on Saturday morning, came home mid-afternoon Monday. Of course, my parents live 2 miles away, so I knew the kids would have access to someone to help them if they needed anything, but we’d have gone on the trip even without my folks being at home. We’d have felt differently, of course, if our kids had ever given us reason not to trust them.
You can trust them completely when you 1) no longer care what they look at on the net (they can handle maturely pretty much anything they encounter) and/or 2) no longer have control over it (they move out).
the rest is a matter of degrees of trust based on constant parental judgment.
I think you should starting trusting your child whole-heartedly when they are 18. I am sixteen, and I can not honestly say that my parents should trust me with all the fiber of there being. Everyone makes mistakes, every teenager lies to their parents. At 18, is when you should say, all right, I have done all I can do, it is there turn to mold their lives. However, if your child were to come to you and ask for help, I don’t expect you to slam the door in their face.
Another opinion would be when they are out from under your roof and or start paying the rent. Joking.
If you don’t plan on having kids any time soon, why should you care?
When you don’t have to get on their ass about doing what they’re supposed to do. If your kid gets good grades and does his chores, let 'im do fuck-all. If he’s an ass, boorish, rude, then he starts losing privileges.
People don’t NEED to be trusted. When most kids - and believe me, I know, I’ve tried this tactic a million times before realizing how stupid it is - say “Why can’t you just trust me?”, they’re really saying “You always spoil my fun!”
Parents exist to spoil kids’ fun. It forces the kids to either A: learn how to accept that sometimes life sucks, B: not fight with authority all the time, or C: plot ways to workaround their parents.
My parents picked and chose their battles. For example, I was always allowed unrestricted internet access. However, I had a 10 pm curfew until I was 17.
But all in all they trusted me with pretty much everything right from the start. And I’ve never disappointed them in that.
