quote: I'd love to see a graph of that could show trends in approaches to the death penalty, spanking, the penal system, and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I wouldn't mind throwing gun-ownership, level of education, taxes, welfare, and religious affliliation along side, just to see. I actually don't know what a graph would look like, but I do think that there would be some interesting correlations, and I am genuinely curious.
Oh, you mean of Hatrackers? I think this has been falling more along the lines of who has children and who doesn't with very few exceptions.
What kind of troublesome variables would there be in an anecdotal and voluntary survey of hatrackers?
posted
While spanking is not the worst method of punishment, it most situations it is not a good thing. I think it can make sense if you are using it to drive home a point that has a huge impact on the safety of a child. For example (as mentioned in previous posts), running in the street. A child may not understand the implications of the dangers involved in running in the street...but they do understand getting spanked for it. Of course no spanking should ever leave a mark...and nothing other than an open hand should be used. Parents should also be careful to not spank in anger...this can lead to injury. Of course there are many who would not agree with me that spanking is OK even in that situation, and I do understand their views...I just feel that in some cases it can be used properly.
Really, with any sort of punishment, a person has to be careful in how much it is used. Whether it is grounding, spanking, timeouts, or what ever else you use...to many punishments can have a very bad impact on the child, and their relationship to the parent. Often the punisher can become an aversive stimulus...so rather than the child learning not to do a certain behavior, the child learns to stay away from the punisher...or to withdraw when they are around the punisher.
Reinforcement is a MUCH better way of adjusting behavior. Instead of punishing bad behavior, reward good behavior. Overall, in both children and adults (and non human animals for that matter) reinforcement is a much more powerful tool for shaping behavior over the long term that punishment.
The punishment a parent should NEVER use no matter what the child does is "withdrawal of love." As absurd as it seems, some parents will tell their children that if they don't behave then they won't love them anymore. This form of abuse can have disastrous effects on a child and should never be used no matter what the situation.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I meant just what I said, and neither more nor less - kids need discipline, but they don't need a specific form, especially when that form hurts. The method chosen is the parents' decision and therefore their responsibility.
posted
If that were the extent of your argument, I would have to agree. And if you say now that that really is all you mean to say, then again, I agree.
On spanking as an absolute, my position is that it is not always wrong to spank, but there are always better alternatives to spanking.
Unfortunately, in practice, it is sometimes hard to think of the better alternative in the moment you are faced with the behavior. It takes quite a degree of planning and agreement between the parents beforehand, and even then there will be situations you didn't foresee, and you will have to make a snap judgment as to whether to spank.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's along the lines of having a child sit in the corner, or sending them to their room. Every parent does it a little differently.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On spanking as an absolute, my position is that it is not always wrong to spank, but there are always better alternatives to spanking.
Unfortunately, in practice, it is sometimes hard to think of the better alternative in the moment you are faced with the behavior.
It does seem like it is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It hurts, and not just physically, but the effects of not spanking when nothing else is working could hurt worse, sometimes in the short term and sometimes in the long term.
I just don't like the idea that any kid would need the spanking. They would need to be taught in the long term against whatever they are doing if it will hurt them more, and in the short term they may need to be prevented by whatever acceptable means necessary from running out into the street, but they don't actually need the spanking itself.
It's like the cod liver oil people used to take religiously because they thought they needed it - it's mixing a method with an end, and I still don't like placing the responsibility for the discipline method chosen on the kid.
posted
Another trouble with time outs is if the child is defiant, the AAP recommends adding another time out. Umm, how long does that go on? A problem I've had with time outs is that the child gets more defiant if they sense you are in a hurry. P.S. Please keep this in mind before you judge people who arrive late to church.
And the AAP definition of time out is no chair. No bathrooms, no bedrooms. I've read other places that the child should be in an out of the way, non-distracting place, but where they can still be monitored. They are big on telling people what not to do. Especially when they are encouraging us to model and teach rather than punish.
The problem here is that Kat just jumped on a word choice and raked Belle over the coals for it, stating openly that Belle was refusing to take responsibility for her choices in discipline. That's rude, presumptive, and, most importantly, criticizing someone while making every possible attempt to misunderstand.
Belle's statement was fairly obivous in it's meaning: one of her kids pushed his limits more than the others and responded less to lesser forms of discipline so she shifted her discipline style with him consciously and accordingly. There was a pretty strong willful misreading, not just of someone else's post, but of someone else's parenting style involved here... and that's below the belt.
posted
It's not a matter of needing a spanking, per se. Instead, the parents will, ideally, sit down and decide, over a period of time, on how they will approach discipline problems, and the kinds of discpline that they will use for specific behavior issues. Just for argument's sake, let's say they have five discipline levels, numbered 1-5. Let's say they decide that spanking is number 4.
Then, when one of their children does something that they have agreed merits a level 4 response, that child gets a spanking. They may not need a spanking in particular, but they DO need a level 4 response, and that happens to be what it consists of in this family.
And it is absolutely NOT a matter of placing the responsibility for the discipline method chosen on the kid. The parents are fully responsible for that. But the kid is fully responsible for his level 4 action, and the parents, once the rule has been established, are perfectly justified in applying the level 4 punishment.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as we are all repeating ourselves for the second page, I'll raise that blaming a child for their punishment is just as wrong for any form of punishment as it is for spanking.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience, with my kids, the most effective method of discipline tends to be the denial of benefits or privileges that the particular child in question is especially fond of. For my first child, this means watching sports on TV, or TV at all. For my second child, it might more often mean sweet treats. It only takes a few times of following through on the warning before the child takes it seriously, and the motivation to get whatever it is that is being denied them is powerful.
However, this doesn't work well in more heated, emotional circumstances, e.g. when the child is irrationally angry or extremely tired. In those cases, they are to some degree out of control, and cannot stop and evaluate the desirability of avoiding the loss of their favorite thing. So in those instances, something else must be used for discipline. A time out of some kind might work, but it has to be tailored to the personality of the child.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a very efficient rubric in my mind.
Spanking = hurt needs to be spanked more = needs to be hurt more
It's the old difference between the behavior and the person. "This child more often does things that we have agreed are punished with a spanking." is very different from "This child needs to be spanked more." It's not a casual difference - it's a huge difference, and I know kids feel it. People feel it. It isn't minor.
pooka: I agree with you - especially when the difference between punishments is because of personality. If one child is so sensitive that he'll cry if you look at him sternly, does that actually make him a better person than another one who is so self-confident and energetic that it takes considerable effort to get his attention? The second one doesn't actually "deserve" a harsher punishment. It's just that that's what works. If you say that the second deserves a harsher punishment because the look doesn't work, then you're blaming him for his personality.
posted
Thanks for that clarification, Kat. I didn't get you before, but now I do.
I agree with much of what Pooka has said here.
I had all kinds of neat and liberal ideas of what kind of parent I would be before I had kids. One of these was I would never ever spank. Unfortunately, in the real world, I ended up with kids who are, at this point in their lives, very difficult to reason with and not terribly responsive to other methods of behavior modification. Which does not mean I spank them all the time. I deal with most behaviors that need modification by rewarding correct choices, withdrawing privileges for bad choices, and time-outs. Repeated bad choices result simply in a repetition of the established consequences for those choices. There are some actions, though, that I consider crucial enough to warrant a more intense response. Most of these are actions likely to lead to my kids getting hurt. I have argued against spanking, here at Hatrack, for behaviors that weren't in this category. But that doesn't mean I think spanking is always a bad idea.
To those of you opposed to spanking, I would humbly submit, based on my own experience, that different kids respond to different approaches. Some kids never need a spanking (sorry if that choice of words aggravates you) because gentler methods of behavior modification are effective with them. But if you have a child that always responded to gentle reasoning, consider the possibility that it might not be only because you are a supremely gifted parent, but that you might also be lucky, to have gotten a child who doesn't need to challenge you as much.
I hope that those of you who think spanking is evil will refrain from coming in here and telling me I am a lousy parent because I spank, but if you do, I guess I opened myself up for it by admitting it here. My response would simply be to point to the inability each of us has to ever walk a mile in each other's shoes.
As to the issue between Belle and Kat, I am seeing it as a semantic one. I set the punishments, but my kids know what punishments are for specific actions, so if they choose to do something that results in a spanking, they have chosen to receive a spanking. This is pretty common in teaching and parenting parlance these days, to refer to things in terms of choices and consequences. It's why I say as a teacher that I never fail a student, some students choose to fail. Well, heck, that's not true. They'd like to never do their work and get an A, but that's not an option. The consequence for not doing any work is an F. You choose that route, you chose to accept the consequence of that route.
Kat, you say spanking = hurt. I think that's an important reason for the disagreement here. I don't agree. As somebody said earlier in this thread (Pooka? PSI?) time out can equal kidnapping and imprisonment, and thus, hurt. Taking a toy away = stealing = hurt. I don't think that it is self-evident that spanking = hurt. I mean, on a superficial level, sure. But do you think it is my intent to seriously hurt my children when I spank them? I hope you don't think so. Clearly, whether you agree or not, I think I am thinking of their ultimate good.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not universally opposed to all spanking, mostly because I can see situations (running to the street) where it is vital, and because I don't have kids and am not often around them. I don't know what I'd do.
But I do think spanking = hurt. That's the point - it hurts to be spanked. That's why it's a deterrent - pain is never fun. It may be beneficial compared to the alternative, but it does hurt. That's why the statment "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" is so ridiculous to the one getting the spanking - they are the ones being smacked by someone five times their size. If that sounds squicky, I don't mean to imply it is child abuse, but I think it is worth keeping in mind the difference between sizes and the imbalance of power.
quote: It's the old difference between the behavior and the person. "This child more often does things that we have agreed are punished with a spanking." is very different from "This child needs to be spanked more." -Katharina
I took what Belle said as; her middle child did things that she thought required spanking more often then the other two. I think the logic was: This child does things that I think require a spanking, this child does them more then my others, so this child requires spanking more often.
Just my interpretation.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the difference between responsiveness and reactiveness? I submit you can't know what is in the person's heart simply by their outward action. Yes, this applies to the parent judging the child as much as it does to the other adult judging the parent. The difference is that the child is the parent's stewardship and the parent is not the stewardship of the observer.
2 Nephi 28:8 warns against taking advantage of others because of their words, to dig a pit for our neighbors.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does seem like it is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It hurts, and not just physically,
I was spanked as a child by incredibly loving parents. And every single time I was spanked, my parents would immediately give me a hug and tell me they loved me to show me it wasn't an attack out of anger to hurt me, but for my own safety and guidance.
I have no emotional scars from spanking.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you are hitting your kids hard enough to cause physical hurt, then there is something wrong.
My parents did the "Go get my belt" trick with my sister and me, and that was a LOT worse than getting hit. The trip back to them, holding the belt, scared me worse than any physical harm that ever happened to me.
I think I was spanked 2 time a yerar, max...and my dad just told me that usually he just snapped the belt and made a noise, without really hitting me.
Which would always explain why my mom, who would wacth, would always laugh when i jumped and cried out... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you are hitting your kids hard enough to cause physical hurt, then there is something wrong.
Isn't the point of spanking to create a physically conditioned deterrent? Spanking is supposed to hurt - but you're not supposed to like doing it. If it hurts (a small sharp sting with a short temprary soreness was what i remember), that's normal. If you INJURE the child, well then NOW something's wrong.
posted
Have you ever spanked a kid and he/she got up, smirking, saying "Didn't hurt"? My nephew does that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that kid is too old. I'm guessing he is over 6, and should be able to understand grounded, no allowance, no dessert etc.
I do think spanking is an easy out. It's much harder to stick with denying a kid dessert. What would rock is some Mrs. Piggle Wiggle style consequences. Sadly, she is fictional.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to come in on Kat's side on this one. It's a responsibility issue. Saying that a child needed to be spanked puts the responsibility on them. It's like saying "It broke." instead of "I broke it." The context that Belle presented the spanking it says "The child made me spank them." as opposed to "I choose to spank them." That's a really poor attitude to take towards spanking and even if that's not really the way Belle consciously thinks about it, some part of her had her say it that way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you guys still attacking Belle? She exited the thread.
My husband get's more speeding tickets than I do. I don't have any problem blaming him and not the cops. I guess. Maybe they secretly hate tall redheads, and like to see if they can get their blood boiling. He's also a middle child. But it's a dumb analogy, since he still speeds. That is, punishment hasn't corrected the misbehavior.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more the way we are trained to couch all parenting and teaching decisions: in terms of choices and consequences. The reasons for this are to empower children, by showing them that they do in fact have the power to avoid consequences they don't like, and also to take away the "bad child" stigma. There are no bad children, only unwise decisions. If there were bad children, there would be no way for them to improve; bad decisions, on the other hand, can be remedied. Kind of a love the sinner hate the sin thing. In general, I think this shift in emphasis is a good thing--specifically, this placing of responsibility on the child. Responsibility equals power to change things. I don't think is saying the child made her SET a given consequence, but that knowing what the consequence was, the child caused her to have to go to it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, I totally agree with the way you framed parenting punishments for the child's perspective. That's really not the way what Belle said came across to me. I read a pretty classic deflection of responsibility for a potentially agressive act. That sort of word choice is one of those things that tons of papers have been written about.
I agree from the kids point of view that they should realize that they are reponsible for their punishments, but we weren't talking about the kids perspective. From the parent's perspective, I think it's really important to own the action, to say that I am choosing to do this harmful thing because I believe it will prevent more harmful things from happening. If you loose that in the idea that the child is making you punish them, I think you run a very big risk of losing sight of what punishments are for.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my mom swatted me a few times when I was a kid, mostly when she caught me doing something incredibly stupid. My dad never, to my recollection, ever hit me. All he had to do was to start unbuckling his belt, and I quit doing whatever it was that I was doing that he didn't want me to do. And I can only remember him ever doing that once or twice.
In both cases, it was an attention-getting device, rather than a "punishment". And I suspect that there are some kids, sometimes, whose attention cannot be gotten without a swat. But I've always felt that it should be a last resort, and "a" swat, not a few or several swats. More than that, and the child gets desensitized to it; it becomes nothing to them.
Then again, I don't have kids. Although people keep trying to give me theirs. Not quite sure why that is.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kind of troublesome variables would there be in an anecdotal and voluntary survey of hatrackers?
Too many variables, and if we were going to do it, I'd do it right. That, and I think that people would lie.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd love to see a graph of that could show trends in approaches to the death penalty, spanking, the penal system, and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I wouldn't mind throwing gun-ownership, level of education, taxes, welfare, and religious affliliation along side, just to see.
I think I suspect what your hypothesis would be, and it doesn't match me real well. I'm hardly your undereducated, fundamentalist, right-wing mut-job.
Of course maybe I'm misreading you totally.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of those issues where I don't really have a hypothesis. I'd make an awful pollster, and probably a worse speech writer. People are too complex and these issues are too independent.
Generally, I imagine that people who think that the only way to get to misbehaving kids is spanking probably think that the only way to get murders is killing them and the only way to get to criminals is jailing them and that you can't negotiate with anybody as evil as a would be terrorist and that since people are stuck the way they are, thank the Lord that there is a heaven where everything is good.
That would be my general hypothesis. It's a guess. I'm not big into regular surveys, and I have an active disdain for bad surveys, but I like a good story.
I was spanked, but only when my parents were feeling tired. It didn't do a darn thing for me because I never associated the punishment with the crime. What did my offense have to do with getting hit? If they couldn't make me understand why what I was doing was wrong, spanking me didn't do it, and if I did understand my wrong, spanking me wasn't necessary. But hey, I don't have kids, and the survey would only be worth it if the people who did have kids took it, and I honestly don't know what it would look like if the survey was done right.
quote:If they couldn't make me understand why what I was doing was wrong, spanking me didn't do it, and if I did understand my wrong, spanking me wasn't necessary.
Some kids know what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway, repeatedly.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of very mixed feelings on spanking. If we ever decided we actually wanted kids I'd want it resolved first.
The way I was spanked borders on the "abusive" definitions here. (My mother broke a couple of wooden spoons on my behind.)
I don't think when I was young they actually administered the reward/consequences scenario too badly, other than the fact that I was spanked for crying loudly after I was spanked.
As I got older though they still spanked me. As I think back though, the problem with the classic reward/consequences thing though is that they didn't have a lot that they could actually use as consequences. Being homeschooled I didn't have oodles of friends, and didn't care as much if I couldn't see them, so grounding was out, and also as a result I didn't have a lot of priveledges they could take away. Didn't watch enough TV that taking it away did any good. All of the extra-curricular activities I did were activities that they felt were "beneficial" overall and had generally gotten me into pretty deliberately, so they couldn't take those away.
They would take away my books. But, punishing your kid for being a voracious reader seeemed a bit overboard even to them so it didn't get used but like two or three times that I remember.
Though the last time my mother belted me was when I was 17 I think. And even when she did it, I think she realized how rediculous it was too.
quote:They would take away my books. But, punishing your kid for being a voracious reader seeemed a bit overboard even to them so it didn't get used but like two or three times that I remember.
Reading is the only thing I was ever grounded from.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, am I actually scarred for life having been spanked? Not any more than most other people. (This is also why I think that it happened differently when I was the youngest, then whe I got older.)
Is pain occasionally an effective behavioral deterrent if the situation warrants it. Yes. Especially in the case of a small child running out into the street, my closest analogy would be that of training a dog. A dog will *never* get to the point where it intellectually understands that running out in the street can cause it to die, even if it can be trained to lead a blind person accross a street safely. So you do use pain as a part of the training procedure as a consequence for not coming when called. This has saved my own dogs lives on several occaisions.
I had one dog that was an incurable runner and I experienced agony every time she broke free and went after a cat accross the street, I can only imagine how much more agony an actual mother would go through. Pain in that situation, if it works as a deterrent (and it doesn't always either, you've always got a few exceptions) is probably the way to go, because there aren't any other deterrents actually left at that point.
At least a kid, if you can keep it alive long enough will develop the intellectual capacity to see the self-preservation benefits of not running into the street. A dog won't. Though we may be evolutionarily be breeding smarter squirrels as the non-roadkill ones are the ones that live to reproduce.
quote: I'm of very mixed feelings on spanking. If we ever decided we actually wanted kids I'd want it resolved first.
I understand, but understand that when you resolve it first, you will be resolving it in the abstract. Keep in mind that what actually happens may contradict your prior beliefs about what is true.
Even as one who spanks, I personally believe it is not appropriate for kids beyond a certain age. What age? Well, that differs from kid to kid, but the age where reasoning is effective, impulse-control is possible, and "natural" consequences of actions are in fact developmentally able to be perceived as "natural." Strapping a 17-year old strikes me as absurd. That's just my opinion, and I understand that there are people who feel precisely the same way at any age.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally would never take away reading privileges. If you have a kid who loves to read, I believe you DON'T FREAKING MESS WITH IT! Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was my thought as a kid - it was the perfect love and habit. The only punishment that got to me was one my parents felt like complete idiots for enforcing.
I was addicted, though. I read instead of doing many (most) other things, and while reading is better than most other things, doing nothing but reading isn't healthy.
In the beginning of the summer I turned 15, my dad told a cautionary tale of how he once spent an entire summer, every day, in the hammock going through a box of books beside him. The moral of the story was supposed to be something like "I just vanished my summer instead of accomplishing something." but what reached comprehension center was "Score! What a fabulous summer! I want a hammock!"
posted
If a kid really loves reading that much, then taking it away is probably the best method of discipline the parent could use. What could be more effective?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it was actually effective. I didn't get into a lot of active trouble, and taking away the books did nothing to create a desire to do my homework or clean my room.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand, UofU, and yet, on some level, I just can't agree. I do like "natural" consequences, whenever I am creative enough to think of them. I can't think of losing reading privileges as a natural consequence for anything. I also worry that kids forced to not read might decide, you know? This is not so bad! I love reading; I read compulsively. But I do believe that the reading habit can be broken.
Is there really nothing else that would be effective? No other privilege that could be lost? And what is the definition of effective, anyway? I have a stereotype that people who love reading are pretty well-behaved anyway, but I'm sure there are exceptions to that.
posted
Icky I believe that the statement you were saying about reading, is exactly the sort of abstract statement that you are talking about with my conflict over spanking as a punishment.
I will say that grounding me from reading was probably the most agonizing punishment they could have given me. And yes, it was (and still is) more of an addiction, so they really weren't worried about me quitting reading permanently.
Actually an interesting hatrack poll would be who on here has won the most summer reading contests at their local library.
AJ
(And generally the grounding occured mid-chapter, and while I was reading at the expense of doing something I *should* have been doing, so yes I wasn't actively going out and spraypainting walls, and I generally got my schoolwork done, but you know if I'd been told to clean the bathroom cause company was coming and she caught me reading instead...)
posted
Thinking about it, my reading did fit all the classic signs of an addiction. I did it to avoid dealing with other things, I did it when I was bored, stressed, nervous, happy. I did it to avoid people, and I did it for clues of how to deal with the world. Also, for a very moral kid otherwise, I had an unfortunate moral blind spot when it came to books. I'd take my brother's books all the time, working on the theory that books belong to those that love them best. I didn't need to be grounded; I needed rehab.
AJ: I concur completely. I never got in trouble for what I did, but I was constantly in trouble for what I didn't do but should have.
posted
Have I mentioned that I finally got my bookshelves organized? I've procrastinated for a year on doing it.
They are organized roughly by subject and author. Since OSC is one of the crossover fantasy/scifi authors, he's always one of the hardest to decide where to put.
For a while I had him on the same shelf as Robert Jordan and my sense of humor found it amusing. Especially imagining certain hatrackers coming over, looking at my bookshelves and being scandalized. However each of them has too many books, for them both to fit on the same shelf, so OSC ended up next to JK Rowling instead.
posted
Until my parents forgot - two or three days, usually.
This led to the Hiding Books phenomon. The best place was in the bathroom between the towels in the cupboard - privacy and they never looked there. Another good place was the top of the closet and underneath the bed - my mom was short and didn't like getting down on her knees to peek under beds.
Banna: OSC has his own shelf, but it's next to the sci fi. The problem is that I'm chronically one bookcase short - there's not enough room to sort them as they should be.
posted
I'm trying to remember for sure. I think at the most a couple of days for severe infractions. I remember going to bed one night and dying of agony because I wasn't allowed to pick up a book on my bookshelf right next to my bed. Most of the time it was a grounding of, you aren't allowed to read until you get x,y,z and q done.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In general, I think this shift in emphasis is a good thing--specifically, this placing of responsibility on the child. Responsibility equals power to change things. I don't think is saying the child made her SET a given consequence, but that knowing what the consequence was, the child caused her to have to go to it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
