Walk me through a few things?

[Pookamama]

Ok, I feel so new and awkward at the GD stuff.
So, how do you handle situations like this:

A child purposely hurts another child.

A child does something irresponsibly, like going out the door and letting the other kids outside as well.

A child knowing violates a well-known rule (six year old boy). Our example today was him climbing inside of the dryer and the four year old joined in the play as well. DH got frustrated and wanted to spank (we're not all on the same page here yet, he doesn't think you can make discipline work w/o it) so he sent them both to time out. I talked with DS and told him how rules keep us safe, and disobeying rules is disrespecting your parents and against God's rules. (Told him about obey your parents verse in Ephesians). I asked him how he could make it right and he said say sorry. So he said sorry to me, and to DH. I told him he should say sorry to God too because in disobeying us he disobeys God. So he prayed and said sorry. But in looking back I don't know if I should lead him to do that or not. He understands it all, he kinda needed me to walk him through the prayer.
And for the four year old, I wasn't sure what to do. I don't know how much four year old 'gets' and he mostly did it because of what his brother did. How much do you deal with four year olds in such a case? I had him say sorry to me and DH and they went on.
So overall I'm so new at this and not knowing how to deal with clear violations of set rules.

[MomtoJGJ]

I'm so not the best at this, but I'll tell you what I do in each of those situations... someone else will come along and lead you through it better than I can!

A child purposely hurts another child. -- I send the aggressor to their bed until they are ready to be kind and gentle. They are allowed out of their bed when they are willing to follow the rules AND to apologize.

A child does something irresponsibly, like going out the door and letting the other kids outside as well. -- I remind them of the rules and tell them to be more careful next time.

A child knowing violates a well-known rule (six year old boy). -- I would explain why we had the rule, make sure the child understands why we have the rule, and have them help me come up with a reasonable consequence if they don't follow the rule. Like with your dryer example, our consequence would probably be doing a good bit of laundry over the next few days. That would go for both the 4yo and the 6yo. Well, assuming the 4yo had been told that getting in the dryer was against the rules. If the 4yo didn't know, then I'd make sure I had a time one on one to explain why it was a rule.

[bolt.]

A child purposely hurts another child.
It depends on the age... that matters a lot.

And it depends what you mean by "purposely" -- a child can hit intentionally for many reasons, and they call for different responses (a) because they want the other child to be hurt, because they like hurting people. (b) because they had a overwhelming emotion about/against another child and expressed it through physical violence. (c) because they do not understand that the people-objects in their life are people like themselves who have feelings that matter. (d) because, at play, everything is pretend, so if you hit someone while playing, that probably wouldn't really hurt.

So... it's complicated... but basically, for most young ages, try

- Physically enter the situation, put your body between aggressor and victim, firmly grab or restrain the hitting hand.
- While at eye level with the aggressor-child, possibly while still holding the offending hand, speak clearly and firmly, giving a direct instruction in an age-appropriate vocabulary (youngest = 'no hit' or 'hands be nice' or 'hands off' -- older kids can get full sentences like, 'you must respect other people's bodies').
- Remove the child to a distance from the situation and sit with them (or have them sit) until their feelings are less overwhelming.
- Give the direct instruction again, then allow re-entry into the situation.
- Supervise well to be able to intervene if the child becomes 'ramped up' again. Try to redirect. Model and teach good play skills (toddlers). Possibly require the child to make amends for their mistake (above preschool age) or act out with you "do-over" the incident, or to tell you a "better plan" for if they have those feelings again (for more school-age).
- If the re-entry processes are resisted, resume the 'until their feelings are less overwhelming' sitting, or leave the situation.

A child does something irresponsibly, like going out the door and letting the other kids outside as well.
- If the child currently has door-opening privileges, retract those privileges until the child can actually handle that privilege. Again, this is very age-dependant -- the child may simply be too young to have door privileges right now... if so, you will find out.
- Have this conversation not in the direct aftermath of the frustrating incident, saying things like, "Because you made a mistake with my door, I am not going to allow you to open the door without permission any more for a little while. For now, when you want to open the door, you need to find me and ask permission."
- Use the 'permission asking' door events to walk the child through, "Let's look around. Are there any smaller children here? I see you have something in your hands. That can make it hard to close the door behind you -- what's your plan?"
- When you are confident that door-responsibility skills have been attained and the habit has been formed, tell the child s/he can now open the door without direct permission, as long as s/he follows the 'good plan' for keeping other children safe.

A child knowing violates a well-known rule (six year old boy). Our example today was him climbing inside of the dryer and the four year old joined in the play as well.
- give a direct instruction - "Get out of there immediately. Sit here and listen to me."
- Start concretely. Is that a place for people? Do you know why not?"
- Explain, using very detailed and excessive age appropriate wording, drawings, internet articles etc. exactly why the dryer is not a place for people. Make the connections to other places in your house that are not places for people (drawers, book shelves, cupboards) and why not. (It could break. People are too heavy. It costs money. We would have wet clothes. People could be hurt. People could suffocate.)
- If necessary, teach the two ages separately so they both understand. Have them demonstrate their understanding by explaining back to you why dryers are not for people.
- Remind them that you already made that rule, because you already knew those things. Confirm very clearly that their 'mistake' was not that they didn't know about dryers, but because they chose not to obey a rule you made. Have them tell you some rules. Have them affirm that they plan to follow rules from now on.
- Find another way to meet them halfway in their desire to play inside a small space -- perhaps a box? What exactly were they pretending about the dryer?

DH got frustrated and wanted to spank (we're not all on the same page here yet, he doesn't think you can make discipline work w/o it) so he sent them both to time out.
Time out is something that can be done mean-spiritedly, but it is also something that can be done simply as a 'wait until I can come and teach you' thing. If your DH wants to keep time out, try to shift it's purpose to a more kindly-meant means of co-operating with the learning process.

I talked with DS and told him how rules keep us safe, and disobeying rules is disrespecting your parents and against God's rules. (Told him about obey your parents verse in Ephesians).

I asked him how he could make it right and he said say sorry. So he said sorry to me, and to DH. I told him he should say sorry to God too because in disobeying us he disobeys God. So he prayed and said sorry. But in looking back I don't know if I should lead him to do that or not. He understands it all, he kinda needed me to walk him through the prayer
This is a common mistake Christian parents make. At a responsible age, God does give this standard to young people who seek to follow His ways. At a young age, kids are only practicing and exploring issues of obedience. They are developmentally incapable of controlling all their impulses, and they are not sinning when they make mistakes regarding their compliance with their parent's limits. <<There are no commands given in the Bible which are directed towards any child under 12. To be commanded, a 'child' is assumed to be beyond the bar-mitzvah.>>

Theological conversations that put guilt on children are not helpful, especially when they are well beyond his ability to understand things 'theoretically'. He understands things concretely, for now. So we stick with that.

The correct theology for parents and small children (if you want to talk about God in a situation like that) is to tell the child that God has entrusted to you their safety, and you must obey God by keeping them safe through having rules in your home. That's why you want to make super-sure that they know the safety rules, and that they follow them.

I think the 'sorry' is also slightly inappropriate. Sorry is for a personal offense, not for a simple mistake. At 6, having incomplete impulse control is not a 'choice' it is a 'mistake' -- meaning they get caught up in things, rather than making a sound choice to do wrong for the sake of doing wrong.

A better work of 'amends' would be for him to demonstrate knowledge of the rule in question, and intention to comply with it -- perhaps by drawing a picture about the rule, writing something or by giving a verbal 'talk' with you and dh as an audience.

How much do you deal with four year olds in such a case?
Same thing -- some places are not for people, and why not -- but at a simpler level. Followed by some sort of a demonstration of "I know this rule, and I want to follow it."

I might (later) teach them each some better skills around... remembering not to lead youngers into trouble / remembering that an older child breaking a rule does not mean 'you' should do it too. This would be a cheerful side-teaching, probably going on for weeks, without relating it back to the dryer incident.

[Tasmanian Saint]

The correct theology for parents and small children (if you want to talk about God in a situation like that) is to tell the child that God has entrusted to you their safety, and you must obey God by keeping them safe through having rules in your home. That's why you want to make super-sure that they know the safety rules, and that they follow them.That's very helpful, bolt.

A child purposely hurts another child.Have you read the 'you hit, you sit' sticky in the FAQs subforum?

So overall I'm so new at this and not knowing how to deal with clear violations of set rules. When I was new (well, always) I found/find it useful to stop and ask myself 'how can I help my child do better in this situation? How can I come alongside him/her?' It doesn't always work, but it's amazing how often this kicks my creativity into gear and at least helps me get out of my reflexive adversarial/punitive thinking.

[Pookamama]

Thank you all for walking me through this. This all makes a lot more sense now.

So the verse in Ephesians, talking about children obeying their parents, it is speaking directly to children. Where does it say that you can't command children until 12? That doesn't really makes sense to me.

[Virginia]

I don't think the Bible explicitly states, "You may not command children until they are 12." My understanding is that "children" back then referred to those over the age 12 (but under 25, or something like that). So, we sometimes let our modern-day understanding of children (3-18 year-olds or whatever) influence how we interpret scriptures about kids.

Someone better qualified can come along and give you much, much better info than I just gave :)

[bolt.]

It's a translation problem around the definition of a child.

A 'child' to us means any small person who is not a baby any more -- someone who can speak and walk.

A 'child' to them many a young person, someone who was not fully independent, who was in a 'training' relationship with their parents... someone old enough to be in an apprenticeship. It is not speaking directly to all 'children' -- it is speaking to 'children' who know Him, have attained a reasonable level of development, are capable of obedience, and are interested in committing their lives to His ways.

The word could refer to younger than that in a narrative sense, but there was a clear understanding that those younger than 12 were not in a direct covenant relationship with God, so God would not be giving them encouraging little commandments. His commandments are for people who can understand and obey them. Why else would God be giving commandments?

To a Hebrew the idea that a 6 year old would be 'held to' the 10 commandments would sound as absurd as the idea that a suckling infant should be reprimanded for coveting his neighbor's wife... if she was lactating.

It is possible that the Hebrew people got the precise age (at which a child is capable of holding to a covenant with God) not exactly dead on. The Scriptures don't say '12' -- what they do say is that God doesn't throw His commands around for no reason. He doesn't set us up to fail. He doesn't make a child's impulse control grow slowly while holding them to a standard of parental obedience since birth.

You may think 6 is old enough to get it... and I would say, to some degree, that they are beginning to be somewhat capable at that age... and the Hebrew people might have benchmarked 12 just for some clarity...

But do you see what I'm saying? There must be some parts of childhood that are 'before obedience is morally expected' and some parts that are 'after obedience is morally expected'. I say that obedience can't be morally expected before it is psychologically within a person's capacity... and I say that's not 6.

I'd humm and haw if we were talking about a 9 or 10 year old or something -- I'm not stuck on the '12' point of view. I'm just leaning very strongly away from considering God the kind of God that expects impossible moral feats out of the children He designed to develop (slowly) in the safety of their loving families. My opinion is that 100% obedience is an impossible moral feat for a 6 year old.

(By the way, in case your brain is following the same bunny-trails as mine... fear-trained youngsters are not 100% 'obedient' in the moral sense -- they still lack impulse control... it just doesn't take impulse control to avoid doing something that will lead to pain (physical or emotional). The impulse to avoid pain is a strong one. Fear-based training encourages children to be ruled by that impulse at all times. Learning actual impulse control is harder.)

[Kiara.I]

Where does it say that you can't command children until 12? That doesn't really makes sense to me.

Ah. Because that's not quite what bolt said. :giggle

<<There are no commands given in the Bible which are directed towards any child under 12. To be commanded, a 'child' is assumed to be beyond the bar-mitzvah.>>

Where it says "to be commanded" I think bolt meant "in order to fall into the group of people to whom God was issuing commands that He intended them to, individually and corporately, obey."

The implication was not that you cannot tell your children directly to do something. The implication was that Biblical commands were not issued to the under-12 set, because their lack of developmental maturity would make them unable to follow the commands independently anyway, and therefore the parents were responsible for surrounding them with an environment in which those commands are obeyed.

You're still allowed to "command" your children under 12, in the sense of "You need to move your body out of that dryer NOW!"

[Pookamama]

Huh. This is all very new to me. So, encouraging children (as in before they develop impulse control) to follow rules should be based on where they are developmentally-so in the young thinkers, as in the six year old, based on concrete things.
So what's the best place to base it for the 3-5 group? What do they 'get'?

[bolt.]

At 3-5 they get some concrete logic, but mostly they are simply memorizing by rote they way the world works, it's characteristics, systems, laws and functions -- they are learning about language, and gravity, and weather, and cars. They do a lot of cause and effect.

So for basically 18 months to 4/5 you can usually stick to simply enforcing what you said. Then they learn that one of the 'laws of the universe' is that whatever mama says is exactly what happens. You can also do cause-and-effect, like "this room is too messy to watch a TV show in" and when-then, like, "When everybody has snowsuits on and their bottoms on the bench, I will give everyone a high-five."

You could also teach what happens after-what as a way of making good behaviour understandable -- like routines, but smaller-scale, like, "When you have a fussy feeling, the right thing to do is to find a place where it's OK to be loud with no-one around." Routines and specific 'correct' responses to specific situations tend to appeal to at least some kids in this age set.

All that being said,

Playful parenting is really your most powerful tool. This age group is so easy to get motivated and on the right track, if you just make it into a fun game with a good in-game reason to do whatever you want done.

It's very freeing to realize you don't have to spend every moment 'training'. They will grow into better skills, and then you can teach things SOOO easily. So if you are not 'training', and you are not needing to assert your own boss-ness, you only need to get stuff done -- and the fastest most cheerful way to get stuff done is to pretend you are the crew of a submarine. Plus... how many 3 year olds know much about submarines? It's educational too.

[jmom1984]

:popcorn

[Titus2Momof4]

Ok, I feel so new and awkward at the GD stuff.
So, how do you handle situations like this:

A child purposely hurts another child.

A child does something irresponsibly, like going out the door and letting the other kids outside as well.

A child knowing violates a well-known rule (six year old boy). Our example today was him climbing inside of the dryer and the four year old joined in the play as well. DH got frustrated and wanted to spank (we're not all on the same page here yet, he doesn't think you can make discipline work w/o it) so he sent them both to time out. I talked with DS and told him how rules keep us safe, and disobeying rules is disrespecting your parents and against God's rules. (Told him about obey your parents verse in Ephesians). I asked him how he could make it right and he said say sorry. So he said sorry to me, and to DH. I told him he should say sorry to God too because in disobeying us he disobeys God. So he prayed and said sorry. But in looking back I don't know if I should lead him to do that or not. He understands it all, he kinda needed me to walk him through the prayer.
And for the four year old, I wasn't sure what to do. I don't know how much four year old 'gets' and he mostly did it because of what his brother did. How much do you deal with four year olds in such a case? I had him say sorry to me and DH and they went on.
So overall I'm so new at this and not knowing how to deal with clear violations of set rules.

I want to first start out by telling you that there are no quick fixes and these aren't the types of things that will stop happening overnight (well, except the dryer thing--but I'll get to that in a minute). So, just understand that.

1) Why is he hitting, do you think? You have to look at this on the outside as well as on the inside. On the outside: was he frustrated about something, or did he just seemingly whack out of nowhere? On the inside: was he tired, hungry, not feeling well, etc.? While I do believe we are all born with a sin nature, I don't believe that people are inherently bad/mean. I don't believe that anyone purposefully wants to inflict harm on another person.

2) A child who shows he cannot be responsible with his freedom to go outside when he wants has that freedom revoked. Until you feel comfortable and that he's responsible to handle this freedom again, he must ask you if he can go out, at which point he must also make sure no little ones are nearby, that everyone is safe, etc.

3) Put a lock on the dryer or block access to the dryer. Regardless of your views on discipline (and dh's conflicting views/temptations to spank), there are some things that are just dangerous and potentially deadly. You simply need to block off all access to said dangerous things.

In addition to blocking off access, I would do as you have done and sit down and talk with ds. I would also explain--in a way he could understand--just how dangerous his actions were, how he needs to be an example to little brother, etc. As for the 4 y/o, I would talk to him on his level (you said you're not sure how much he "gets"...and I would agree) about how dangerous that was...................in the meantime, prevent it from happening again by blocking off access to the dryer.

Since you are new to GD, it might be a foreign concept to understand that not everything requires "some kind of consequence/punishment." We were spankers (on and off) for years, so I completely understand that action--->reaction mindset your dh has and that you are working to change. :hugheart