Parents have every right to ‘snoop’ on their children. The parents’ need to properly raise the little sh-, er, angel, trumps that kids’ ‘right to privacy’.
Then again, it would be good if teenagers had a little bit of privacy.
The best deterrence, I believe, is to clean the kid’s room periodically, but don’t snoop. The kid will probably get nervous if there’s something in the room that (s)he doesn’t want the parent to see. The teen will then remove it, without the direct threat of snooping.
IMHO while the parent is legally responsible for the child the parent has a right to snoop. The parent may offer the child some privacy, but that is a goodwill gesture more than anything.
A parent has not only the right but the responsibility to snoop. Butting into your child’s business is most of what parenting is, isn’t it? The relationship between a parent and child is not like the relationship between two adults.
I’ve seen so many students who have harder lives than they have to… whose lives would be much improved if their parents would just take the occasional look in their sock drawer.
Sure the parents should search the kids room, if they want to lose all respect and trust he has for them and become his jail warden not his parents. You will damage your relationship irrepairably if you search, especially as a first resort. Parents may have the right to snoop, but once you use that, you will lose your child’s trust. And as for periodic cleanings, I never met a teenager who did not consider them searches.
I agree with lee. I think it’s the mindset of parent’s who would snoop in the first place that would create a child who needed to be snooped. Talk with your kids, not at them.
My parents would no more have cleaned my room than they would have given me an eight-ball of coke for Christmas. What kids get their bedrooms cleaned by Mom?
IMHO, privacy for a kid is a privilege, not a right. If you want the right to privacy, move out. Until then, too bad.
Now, as for whether or not it’s a good idea, it depends on the parent and the situation. A parent should OFFER a teenager a degree of privacy, and routine snooping isn’t appropriate; it can also, depending on the parent, lead to confrontations or embarassment over stuff that probably doesn’t merit concern (little Johnny has a collection of Playboys undee the mattress.) On the other hand if there’s legitimate reason to believe something is up that may be confirmed by a search, e.g. drug use, snoop away.
However, a 14-year-old getting surly is hardly a reason for concern. They get surly at that age.
Only if the parent has a real suspicion that the kid’s doing drugs, and IMO they’d have to have considerably more to go on than “rebellious, moody and sullen”, which is normal adolescent behavior. There’s more to it than that.
It’s usually the “stealing/bad temper/change in attitude/dropping grades/hanging around with the wrong sort of people” combination that causes the parent’s “Uh-oh” alarm to kick in (rather than the OP’s simple “bad temper/change in attitude” combination) and in that case, I’d say absolutely, get in there and start looking around.
[ul][li]Kids whose Mom is wondering where all the bath towels have disappeared to.[/li][li]Kids whose Mom is wondering where all the ants are coming from, upstairs.[/li][li]Kids whose Mom is wondering what that bad smell is–it isn’t socks, it’s more like something…dead…[/li][li]Kids whose Mom can’t get to the bedroom window to open it.[/li][/ul]You must have been a perfect child, Rick.
Observe, this is a universal assertion. No caveats, nothing else.
Hence, this simple rebuttal.
My parents snooped. All of us kids had elaborate hiding places for the booze, porn, etc. we didn’t want our parents to find. We (i) didn’t lose any respect or trust for them, (ii) they remained our parents rather than jail wardens, and (iii) our relationships were not harmed irreperably.
This is one of those few instances were anecdotal evidence is conclusive - when a universal assertion is made, a single example to the contrary will disprove it.
No, but if bath towels were disppearing into my room and ants were coming out, I would have been sent to clean my room. Honestly, I’ve never heard of parents cleaning their kids’ rooms.
As a parent you have only to be responsible to be considered a good parent. (assuming that everyone knows that beating kids is irresponsible)
so if the standing rule is that the parent is allowed to snoop, the parent only has to follow his/her set rule.
re: cleaning the room, I’d only recommend it if the room needs cleaning (you can set whatever standard you want) and the kid refuses to clean it.
Set a limit “the room has to be clean by 4:00 or I’m cleaning it my way”
Then clean it by getting into all the nooks and crannies. But tell the kid when and why. Be honest.
re: suspicion of drug use.
ask the kid, bring to his attention the changes in behavior, and the parents’ concern. This may be enough if the kid and parents have a good relationship.
if the parent really feels the need to search the room,
Tell the kid first, Tell the kid why, and tell the kid when.
be responsible, I can’t stress this enough.
keep tabs on teenagers. A good guideline is that a 14 year old shouldn’t be without adult supervision for more than 1-2 hours at a time, depending on trust level, the parents’ knowledge of the kid’s friends, and where they’re going to be (like the mall vs. someone’s house w/o parents) the time increases as the kid gets older, but not much.
I don’t think parents should make it a habit to search a child’s room, for several reasons.
First, all it does is force the child to find better hiding places for his stuff. If I knew my parents were searching my room, all I’d do is find a different place to put it, where I know they wouldn’t think to look.
Second, it violates the trust between parents and child. Teenagers are starting to assert their own independence and personality, and they’re entitled to have some things kept private. If Aaron were to have a stash of porn as a teenager, I doubt I’d care all that much; establishing sexuality is a part of adolescence. However, if a child is showing signs of substance abuse, all rules go out the window, and I think parents have the obligation to search.
What it comes down to is this. I think parents should follow the same standards the police do. If the child is showing signs of substance abuse or psychological problems, I think parents have the obligation to look for alcohol, drugs or possible suicide plans. However, if the child is basically being a child, then he deserves his privacy.
MsRobyn,
I have to disagree about a few things
(i don’t advocate routine searches, but i do disagree with your reasoning)
Forcing the child to find better hiding places is a good thing. It’s what milton erickson defined as an “ordeal” when faced with the ordeal, the child is forced to face the problem in an evaluative way. “do i really need to be sneaking out to the attic in the garage where we keep the christmas stuff to be drinking?” it makes the activity more dangerous, and the child feel less at ease engaging in it.
regarding trust: trust is established in early childhood via attachment between parent and child, if a parent and child aren’t attached by age 14 - they are going to need professional help (and the child has probably already been acting out long before adolescence)
trust is fostered by consistency, constancy, and sameness of experience (eric erickson)
a parent setting fair, consistent, and constant limits; then abiding by those limits is what creates and fosters trust.
thus the parent only needs to remain responsible and consistent about the rules (said as if it were easy, I know)
can’t just throw all the rules out the window, that’s what ruins trust.
Not necessarily. If a child truly wants to do something, they’ll find a way to do it. A child who is drinking may do a risk-benefit analysis and decide it’s not worth it. A child showing alcoholic tendencies may decide it’s worth it. (As a sober alcoholic, I’m familiar with that thinking.) Assuming the child were not demonstrating self-destructive or addictive behavior, I’d agree with you.
Again, I think this would depend on the circumstances being normal, or reasonably so. If a child is demonstrating self-destructive or addictive characteristics, trust isn’t really a concept. In fact, the child might believe there is no trust when there really is trust.
Look. If everything is going well, and my kid were just acting like a normal teenager, I’d stay out of his room. But if he were showing signs of substance abuse or psychological problems, I’d make it my business to look. I’ve lived through teenage depression and alcoholism; if snooping leads me to a suicide plan or drugs, then it’s a good thing. In the meantime, however, the kid’s entitled to privacy.
I would think it would only be a trust issue if it were implicitly understood that no snooping would occur. If the kid knows (and has known since childhood) that their parents have no qualms about snooping in their stuff, then it would just be the status quo. IOW, if everything is reasonably upfront, then snooping would not be a breach of trust.
