How do you handle your teen?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Parents are responsible for their kids under 18 over here, too. But that’s not what the “feet under table” argument is about. It’s about “we pay, and you do as we say, down to every little tidbit of opinion or back-talking”. Basically, the teenager hears “You’re not wanted here, the earlier you leave the better, and in the meantime, because of the huge burden you are, you are a prisoner with no free will.” Of course the teenager rebels against that with “I didn’T ask to be born” or similar.

If you sit the teen down and explain what laws apply and why there can be trouble, it’s a very different situation than the “feet under table” argument.

That doesn’t mean you have to treat the teen like a prisoner for having an opinion different from you, or wanting to have a life, too.

Of course the teen in the OP isn’t rational at the moment. One problem esp. children have is that they don’T know clearly what their feelings are, so they have difficulty articulating them. That’s why talking in the right way (professionally) is important.

Talking at a teen, instead of with him, is a world of difference. If the teen doesn’t trust what his parents say, he won’t talk honestly to them, because he doesn’T believe they will care, or that it will make a difference. And going to a professional won’T be helpful if the teen believes that the shrink is there to make him go back on track and obey, instead of fixing the problem in the whole family.

Try to see things from his perspective: you feel you are treated unjustly and unfairly by somebody who has control over important aspects of your life (and he’s already partly adult, so he will feel that he can make some decisions of his own). Instead of listening to your complaints, you get ordered to solitary confiment, and there is no higher authority to appeal to. Maybe you have had a boss who simply would not listen to your side of any problem? That’s probably how the teen feels, only he can’T quit the job and walk away. He’s doing the only thing possible for his self-respect, and I’m sure he doesn’t like this, either. But he doesn’t want to give in to unfairness (from his POV), and so things continue.

A trained professional or a mediator is good if the parents accept and understand that they might have done something wrong (not in the sense of using too little discipline, but in the sense of insulting another human person, or belittling him, or otherwise being unfair.)

Have you ever apologized to your child because what you did was wrong, like calling him names or belittling him? If not, there’s no true respect. No parent can be a perfect person 24/7; but how shall a child learn to control his temper and respect other people if he isn’t respected? It impresses a child much, much more if a parent admits a mistake “That was out of line, I shouldn’t have called you an idiot, I’m sorry”, then if a parent pretends to be above the rules and infallible. Kids will eventually realize you’re not, and then they will losse the artifical respect for you.

62

I don’t have kids, so feel free to dismiss my opinion as worthless. That’s never stopped me from giving an opinion anyway. :slight_smile:

IMO, the issue is respect. Respect for me as the (hypothetical) parent and respect for my house. You live in MY house by MY permission; you eat MY food because I let you; and you do so with the implicit understanding that you treat me with respect and you follow the house rules. If you can’t do that, then you cannot live in my house. Period.

To me, the issue would not be having bars on the windows to keep the kid in; it would be having a lock on the door to keep the kid out. The boy is old enough for a sit-down, dead-serious, come-to-Jesus talk, to the effect that I cannot allow you to disrepect me, to disregard house rules, to upset your brothers and sisters and set a terrible example of what I expect and will tolerate. You need to get your act together or you need to find someplace else to live. I love you, but if you think I’m done raising you, that you’re an adult and have been raised, that take your adult self out of my house and make your own decisions with your own resources and money. You are welcome to come back at any time that you can assure me you are willing and able to live by the rules I set down.

If he left without permission, I would lock his ass out. If he was disrespectful to me or other members of my household, I would throw his ass out. I realize that parents are responsible for their children until the children are adults, but I do not believe this means you must allow your children the run of your home, over your objections. If DFS or the police have a better idea of what to do with a large 16 year old boy, let them deal with him for a while.

I know this sounds like the toughest of tough love, and I know it would be very, very difficult to do: “I’ve kicked my child out of my house and it’s 3 a.m. Where is he? Who is he with? Is he warm? Is he safe?” But I also think that a couple of nights of at best sleeping on the floor of a friend’s house might adjust his attitude as to the value of the home I’m offering. At sixteen, I think you have to let the chips fall where they may; his parents are doing this kid no favors – and doing his younger siblings no favors either – by letting him believe that in their house, or in the real world, that sort of “I’m going to do whatever I want and the hell with you” attitude plays.

63

But in the real world, it does. Once you turn 18, there’s no micromanaging authority hovering over you, telling you what time you have to be home, where you have to work, or when you’re going on vacation.

In the real world, you make your own choices, and the consequences stem naturally from your actions. If you can’t get along with your boss, you find another job somewhere else. He doesn’t lock you in your office when you try to resign.

64

I don’t think WhyNot or anyone else is arguing that parents should be able to insult/abuse children with impunity. Just that the parent-child relationship is not the same, nor should it be the same, as a relationship between adult peers.

65

I also have to say, as others have, that I seriously doubt this problem really arose out of the blue. If I ever have kids, I don’t think I would have this sort of problem with a sixteen year old – unless we were dealing with addiction behaviors – because I wouldn’t have tolerated him disrespecting me or disregarding house rules when he was four or eight or twelve. So if his behavior really is “out of the blue,” I would echo the suggestions of others that the parents take a hard look at whether his behavior is drug- or alcohol-influenced.

It’s also worth pointing out that serious mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, can first appear in the teenage-to-early-adult years. In the earliest stages, that can manifest in changes of behavior. That doesn’t sound like what we’re dealing with here, but it’s worth a mention. If the kid’s behavior has really changed, it might be worth having him see a doctor or counselor. If it’s just “I’m bigger than you so you can’t tell me what to do anymore,” then my take is as given above.

66

Um, that’s what I meant, too. The issue is settled once, which means “no”, and that is firm. And the supermarket is not the place for this discussion, which is made clear, too. Dreikurs recommends removal - if the kid (toddler) is throwing a fit in the supermarket, remove him to the car so he can cool off. (Attention feeds tantrums in a feedback-loop). And do so in a calm manner - no moralising (that makes the kid want to resist more - nobody likes to be told “you are a bad person”.) I think you misunderstood my argument if you think I would give the kid candy; there are too many arguments against it.

However, when the kid is no longer a toddler, but in first grade, he starts getting allowance. And if he wants to spend that allowance on candy, that’s his decision. (He has to brush his teeth, of course). It’s still unhealty, and he shouldn’t eat it before dinner, but it’s his decision and choice. (We adults eat unhealthy stuff, too, so how could I get on a high horse?)

67

You’re making my point; this attitude does NOT play in the real world. If you can’t get along with your boss, he fires your ass. He may not lock you in the office, but he eventually will lock you out of it. It’s not all up to YOU as the obnoxious twerp to decide how you will act, because if you misbehave, the real world will jerk a knot in your tail in a hurry.

68

I agree with this. constanze is saying that the choice still ultimately belongs to the child, even after the discussion and debate. So “accepting the fact that they won’t get it” isn’t part of the equation, because they get whatever they want.

69

Actually, yes, I think that I must have misunderstood it. :confused: Everything you said in this post seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m not sure how someone who doesn’t believe in parental authority, as you were arguing previously, could have said it.

70

But that’s not what the advice is. Nobody is saying “Let this behaviour continue”. (And I do think the teen, too, is unhappy. He certainly would like to get along with his parents and siblings as before.) I suggested a serious talk with him, in all respect - not a talk at him, or orders or cajoling, or anything.

Effectivly, your suggestion is “Come crawling back on your belly to me, because I’m the boss, otherwise, you’re on your own”. That doesn’t show any love or respect for a fellow human, or your own child. That’s “let’s see who is stronger”. Yes, you have house rules. Yes, a child (or any other person) shouldn’t call you names. But would you order your adult friends to follow these rules, or would you calmly tell them and explain the reasons (if the rules aren’t obvious)?
If you have an argument with your adult friends, would you send them to their room till they apologize for having a different opinion in your house?
Why do you think it’s okay to treat a 16-year old this way? Only because he’s a child he has no right to his own opinion and preferences? He must go along on a vacation when he doesn’t want to? If the issue is that he can’t stay alone at home, then find an alternative - by talking with him, not threatening him to go into the car or else the police will arrest him!

71

constanze - if you re-read what I wrote, I suggested that parents ought to be “reasonable authority figures” which might help their kids deal with other authority figures - both reasonable and un - in the future.

One of the (many) things I found hardest as a parent was distinguishing between the situations that were amenable to droup discussion, and the ones requiring authoritarian decision-making. I know I found myself saying “no” far more often than necessary, just because the proposal was not what I would have chosen, etc. From that point on I made the conscious choice of saying “yes” whenever possible - if it did not require excessive time, expense, effort on my part. If it primarily involved the kid and their efforts. If I did not anticipate it causing significant problems for the kid. Etc. But, I can imagine a parent approaching things from the opposite end of the spectrum reconsidering the merits of always saying “yes.” I’m not sure which adjustment would be easier.

My wife and I are both lawyers (a moment for you all to feel sorry for our kids.) Tho we discuss just about anything and everything openly as a family, from an early age my kids were well aquainted with the phrases “Non-responsive, motion to strike” and “Asked and answered.”

72

constanze, I don’t think your position is consistent. Should the teenager have total autonomy or not? In other words, is it ever okay for a parent to force their child to do something? Or are you only arguing the degree to which this is appropriate (brush your teeth - yes, go on a vacation - no)?

73

Because authority means different things to different people. I disagree with the authoritarian approach of parenthood, where orders are given “because I’m the boss, so jump, no questions asked”.

I’m trying to remember a distincition between two different forms of authority. The author of the book used the roman words, auctoritas was the fear of an absolute ruler who could cut your head off, but the other word was the respect for the old men in the roman senate because of their wisdom and personal character.

I don’t believe, as many seem to do, that being a parent automatically makes you absolute ruler. I believe in the democratic approach. That still leaves logical consequences for actions (instead of punishment from personal revenge). That still leaves basic rules to ensure a child’s safety - not to run out into traffic, not to play unsupervised with fire, etc. But these rules come from logic, and so they are explained.

If the child wants candy in the check-out line, I explain - not in the supermarket, but at a calm moment - that these sweets are expensive, not in the budget or on the shopping list, and spoil the appetite for dinner. I listen if the child has a different opinion, and we examine his arguments (so he’ll learn which arguments are valid and make sense).

And while I don’t have children of my own, I was a child, and when my mom said No, I knew that further whining wouldn’t get me anywhere (and she explained that she was opposed to the marketing trick, so I knew why), so I didn’t try.

But, because I don’t believe in the authoriatarian rule, the child can buy sweets from his allowance, because it’s not my business as parent to decide every aspect of his life. I may disagree with sweets, because they are unhealthy, but as long as I eat them, too, I haven’t the right to forbid him his. (And then he will learn himself which sweets are too expensive).
I don’t need to order him to eat spinach if he doesn’t like it. At the weekly family meeting, the whole family can decide on the meal plan for the next week, and what’s possible with the budget. Letting people (kids) particpate, and they will feel much more resposnible for the outcome, and will do their part to ensure it.

74

Total autonomy - no, of course. That’s not possible with the laws, and because a teenager is not a full adult yet, he still has issues to learn, experiences to make and tempers to control.

The situation in the OP - resolve the issue by having a serious, honest talk and getting to the roots of the problem, and finding a solution that works for all (not just a smack-down from one side).

And my position is moderate - not total control over every aspect, but not laissez-faire either.

A parent forcing a child - yes, to a degree. Brushing teeth is important for health, of course. Going on a vacation as 16-year-old - why the heck is that important if he doesn’t want to? I certainly wasn’t eager to go on vacation with my family at 16!

75

Well, my point is there’s no sense in treating the parents’ requests as the kind of thing you just have to deal with in the real world, and coming up with ever-more-creative ways to force him to submit.

If he has a reasonable alternative to living under their roof, and they can practically and legally kick him out, then sure, go for it. But I think that might be difficult in practice, and everyone would be better served if the parents just admitted it doesn’t really matter what time he comes home or whether he gets a summer job.

When you’re talking about respect, don’t forget about parents respecting their children. They have at least as much of an obligation to do that as the children do. After all, “I never asked to be born!” might be a cliche, but it’s still true - bringing someone into the world, only to act like he owes you something for providing the basic necessities of life, isn’t much better than kidnapping a stranger and doing the same to him.

76

I certainly did not intend to confuse “authority” with “authoritarianism.” Nor do I see anyone else. IMO a parent ought always be an authority figure to their kids. And at times, some amount of authoritarianism will be required of just about every parent.

77

What you describe here sounds reasonable and fair to the kids (a thumbs-up for re-evaluating your approach!), and what I certainly agree with.

Side question: have your kids also become lawyers, if they were already familiar with the jargon?

78

constanze, you still don’t seem to get that I AGREE WITH YOU. (Except your assertion that “under my table” isn’t logical - it is logical, although saying those words alone isn’t useful. There’s a difference.)

Yes, parents should talk to their children.

Yes, parents should LISTEN to their children.

Yes, parents should explain, as appropriate, the reasons for their rules and decisions. Explaining why I won’t let them stay out late (you have to get rest or you’ll be a wreak in school tomorrow, and don’t you have a test to study for anyway?) teaches them what sort of things to consider when someday they have to make the decision without my aid.

Yes, teens who are acting appropriately should have a great deal of control over their lives, including coming and going (within reason - if I’m losing sleep because you’re later than you said you’d be, you’re now affecting me, and that needs to stop), working or not working, and even, perhaps, going on vacation or not ('though the kid should definitely work to pay his room and board at a relative’s, just like he would for summer camp, IMHO.)

Yes, teaching kids to make their own decisions is a gradual process - they should have little tiny choices with little tiny consequences as little tiny people, and bigger ones as they get bigger.

But I ALSO agree with other posters that sometimes, these things don’t work. Sometimes these things don’t work with adults, why should they always work with kids? I admit, there have been times when I’m just not up for a rational discussion with my husband about why the toilet paper should be stacked under the sink instead of on the bottom shelf. I find the whole damn thing ridiculous, and I may just walk away and ignore him for a while till I cool down. Doesn’t matter how much my husband want to talk about the goddam toilet papter, I’m not going to engage in a rational discussion about it until I cool down. (Yeah, that happened last night.) But you can wait for a teenager to “cool down” for YEARS. Something has to happen in the meantime.

Has productive talking and listening been tried in this case? I admit, I don’t know. I further admit that I answered the first time assuming that they had been and it hadn’t worked, because these techniques just seem so natural to me I don’t really think about articulating them. That was sloppy posting on my part.

I have apologized to him for errors, yes of course. How will he learn that it’s OK to make mistakes if I pretend I’ve never made one? I will always reserve the right to change my mind if presented with new arguments or reasons. (This does not, however, mean that you can keep whining the same old ones at me.)

I have never, not once, not even close, called him a name. I think there’s no value in it, and it’s not something I do, even in anger. When we discuss consequences, it’s for what he’s done, not what he is. I know this was just an example on your part; there are certainly other ways in which I’ve made mistakes, but I find name-calling so abhorrent that I need to be perfectly clear that I’ve never done that to him. My kids are allowed to hit (after a carefully proscribed set of events which I’ve detailed in another thread) before they’re allowed to call names. Yeah, I have some personal baggage around name calling.

79

Kids are only 18, 17, and 15, tho it looks as tho we have successfully dissuaded them from pursuing law as a career. If they want to be whores, hopefully they will find a way to sell themselves in a manner that is more enjoyable/entertaining.

80

Your last post made your point much clearer to me, and yes, we do have the same point of view. You sound as if you have done a very good job raising your children. I guess I made a mistake as if I was accusing you of doing it wrong; I meant to ask the question of name-calling and similar more generally.

And I absolutely agree with you, that only if you admit your own mistakes, can your child learn.