Good thing it’s a short thread then. You won’t be too challenged when you read it through again to figure out what you’ve missed.
With control being such a loaded word, how about we just say that the parent should respond properly to the kid’s behavior, be the kid ADHD, autistic, Downs, broken leg, asthma, or just a healthy normal kid, all of who need proper responses when they behave inappropriately for the situation.
I down with that, QtM. For some reason, when I think of controlling a kid…this is what comes to mind. YMMV. Maybe that’s why some see it as a “distinction without a difference” while those with autistic children (China Guy and myself…but not the OP’s Lazy Mom) do see it as an attempt to integrate and mainstream our kids in the public the best way we know how. It’s not gonna be perfect, but our attempts should cause the least amount of impact on the public as possible. After all, that’s our dream goal…won’t know unless we try.
Are you talking about the kid leash? I’ve seen a LOT of those, and they’re usually used with little kids so they won’t wander off. My mother used one with my sister (it was just a wrist thingy), because she was always running away. (And of course, my sister took advantage of it, using it to wrap around displays)
They’re usually backpacks nowadays, with a stuffed animal, and the “leash” is the “tail” part.
I’m not saying that’s what would work with autistic kids, but I don’t think of it as “controlling your kid”, as in, somehow suppressing them, or whatever.
I don’t mind if a kid comes up with a valid reason to interrupt [needs to go pee and needs help in the bathroom, has a question with a time element or the like] but a kid screaming in the middle of the movie for no reason other than overload, take him/her/it outside until the fit passes then bring them back in.
“it” is a little uncalled for. Just sayin’
Yeah. The sprog has a tendency to act out when he’s in a situation he doesn’t particularly want to be in. Leaving just reinforces that it’s OK to behave that way; if he does, he’ll get what he wants, even though leaving would be best for the other patrons of that particular establishment. So do I not cave in to his behavior, or do I think of the other people? It’s a tough choice.
Overall (and I realize that as one of the “other people” in a public setting, I may be biased here), my personal opinion is that parents have to come down on the side of leaving.
After all, the whole point of the parental rule about not being loud and disruptive in public is that it’s unacceptably rude to disturb other people, right? So if you let your kid go on being loud and disruptive in public merely in order not to “cave in to his behavior”, you’re not only seriously disturbing other people, but you’re also undermining in the kid’s eyes the very lesson you’re trying to teach.
I sympathize heartily with parents whose children use “acting out” to manipulate their parents into removing them from a situation they don’t like (a category which, AFAICT, includes pretty much all parents at some time or other. The “supermarket tantrum” seems to be an almost universal rite of passage).
But unless it’s a situation that the child absolutely HAS to be in (like getting a shot at the doctor’s, or something like that), I think that parents ought to stick by the rule “being persistently disruptive = getting removed”.
My kid is somewhat uneasy at the doctor’s office, but the dentist seems to be the most trying experience of all. I can help him brush his teeth, but that’s about it…he did get his first set of dental xrays last visit…took over an hour…and I have to hold him (with my own lead vest on as well) so he can stay still long enough. At the age of 10, it’s getting harder each time.
My sympathies, Yeticus, I know that dentist visits can be very trying even for neurotypical kids (hell, even for lots of neurotypical adults). If the dentist and his/her staff know in advance that your kid may be freaked out by the situation and may take a long time for the procedures, I think you’re doing all that can be expected.
A couple of weeks ago, I was at the library checking out, and this woman was coming downstairs with her kids. Her son (who was maybe about four), was wailing like a banshee and kept saying, “I’ll be good! I’ll be good!” Nope, she didn’t listen to his tears, they left.
Now, should they have stayed, and disturbed the other patrons? Just so she wouldn’t “reinforce his behavior”?
Ya lost me here: this sounds like the exact opposite situation from what MsRobyn was describing.
Her example was of a child being loud and annoying in order to manipulate a parent into REMOVING him from a public environment where he didn’t want to be in the first place. The dilemma is whether you follow standard child-rearing protocol by removing his loud and annoying self from the presence of others, which is exactly what he wants, or attempt to “disincentivize” the loud and annoying behavior by NOT removing him. As I said, I still think parents should stick to the removal protocol, but I recognize that there’s a trade-off involved.
The situation you describe, on the other hand, appears to involve a child being loud and annoying in order to influence a parent NOT to remove him from this particular environment (the library) where he apparently DOES want to be.
There’s no dilemma there at all: removing loud and annoying child both spares the other patrons from having to put up with his behavior AND proves to said child that being loud and annoying is not an effective strategy. Win-win; no trade-off required whatsoever.
In order to avoid having the noxious behavior reinforced by having the child obtain a desired outcome, there has to be some undesirable consequence also attached to the removal from the grocery store. A loss of privileges, a loss of opportunity for reinforcement… the ideal varies from child to child.
Parents need to be consistent in order to avoid the coercive cycle that may reinforce both parent and child for displaying and giving in to noxious behaviors. It isn’t always easy, especially when the parent likely needed to stay to complete whatever the task was, but when persistent non-compliant or disruptive behavior is a problem for a child, it has to be met consistently and firmly.
These Issues become exasperating to engage in at least partly as a result over quibbling over terminology like control/appropriate response or normal/neurotypical, when really everyone understands what is being meant but someone always insists on derailing the discussion based in semantics.
Yeah, and as you note, that often takes buttloads of effort and time.
I was very impressed with a strategy of a friend of mine whose son was going through the “supermarket tantrum” phase. He demanded to leave the store, she told him they had to finish shopping, he started screaming, she parked the shopping cart out of the way and told a clerk she’d be back shortly and took him out to the car.
Waited in the car till he calmed down, told him calmly that they needed to finish buying the groceries, took him back in the store and told the clerks “Hi again, we’re practicing our happy shopping!”. After a few minutes he melted down again, cycle repeats.
I think by the second time they came back in, the clerks started telling him “Keep smiling! You can do it!” and that sort of thing. And at some point, he managed to let go of the tantrum response. Win!
A great example of exactly the sort of thing you’re talking about: not reinforcing the child’s noxious behavior but also not unduly subjecting other people to the noxious behavior. But boy, I would be really put to it to pull off something like that if I had (a) a tight schedule or (b) frozen items in the shopping cart or (c) a headache or (d) some combination of the above. Babbyforming iz hard werk.
Holy smokes. :eek: I don’t hit my kid, but I probably would’ve smacked him clear into the dairy aisle if that happened to me.
The good thing is that behavioral strategies are empirically more effective and don’t make you feel like shit afterwards.
I really like that supermarket-tantrum strategy, Kimstu. I’m stashing it away in case I need it someday, which the odds say I will.
But that strategy, like most of the good ones, is wayyy clearer and easier when you only have one kid. So far we just have a toddler, so we can afford to take all the time and persistence and repetition that a situation needs. But if you also have a baby who’s screaming with hunger, or another toddler who’s taking tantrum turns with the first one, or another kid who’s been behaving beautifully and doesn’t deserve to go through the whole discipline routine as well, I have no clue what you do.
Yeah, but I bet that smack is awfully satisfying at the moment.
It’s the SDMB, somebody comes into every damn thread and derails it with semantics. I think only about 50% of threads actually stick to the topic of the OP.