s/o child abuse death: how long for time out?

[dragons in the flower bed]

In the Virginia Knowles blog linked to from the Timberdoodle blog posted here on the abuse death thread, Knowles writes that the following is possibly an abusive situations.

 

"Parents who lock their children up in a room for extended periods of time (I'm not talking about reasonable 'time out')"

 

I've heard and used the guideline of having minutes correspond to age, so a four-year-old has four minutes, etc. We don't do time out exactly, but I send the kids to their room so any one of us can cool off, or just to break the kids out of a winding up kind of energy pattern. I still use nine minutes for the nine-year-old when I do this, seven for the seven-year-old, etc.

 

But a couple of weeks ago I was talking to friends about a mutual friend who was struggling to gain control of her child and was sending him to his room for hours at a time. My jaw dropped and I told them the minute guideline, but then I wondered... how unusual is it to put a kid in their room for hours?

 

So, for those of you who do use isolation or involuntary relocation as a consequence, how long do you feel comfortable leaving a child under age eleven in there?

Edited February 23, 2010 by dragons in the flower bed
random apostrophe

[HRAAB]

Not for hours! I always heard the minutes = age, too. If my one of my 9 yr. olds needs time to cool down, I would do 10 min., no more. Usually, I'm more likely to take them with me wherever I am. If I'm cooking, bring them in the kitchen, pull a chair up by the counter and have them sit with me. Unless, I need to calm down and not see them for a few minutes. :)

[Impish]

I have an 11 yo. I don't time her. Once I'm calm, she's usually calm, and we chat.

 

For the Littles, I mainly go by the minute age...but there are times when they're having a melt down, and it simply isn't going to adhere to a specified time frame. Once they're calm, then I go and talk to them.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I put up to 30 minutes. But honestly I would probably go no more than 10 min. I put longer because if I was really upset, I would see it as being better for the kids to be separated for me that long. (So the time out would really be for me not them). I do know that I can definitely get myself under control if I have 30 min. of quiet and deep breathing.

 

Now - if they were crying uncontrollably in there (from being upset themselves) I would go in sooner to try and calm them down just by holding them or something.

[dragons in the flower bed]

If I'm cooking, bring them in the kitchen, pull a chair up by the counter and have them sit with me.

 

I do that, too, and think of it as "time-in." That I sometimes do for an hour, when a child is in a seriously bad headspace and I just don't trust them with breakables (including their breakable siblings).

[SonshineLearner]

Well, I think it's depending on why you're doing it. For youngers, it works to send them for a bit to get control of themselves. For olders... you're looking for that willingness to co-operate, too. I mean... that's what I've always wanted. So.. while my 6 year old could take a few minutes... My 11 year old could take... 3 or 4 hours with no books. But... it's not necessarily that we send her to her room for that time. We might just put her on the stairs and ask her to stay there until she's ready to talk. Basically it's a self imposed time out. For example... "Please unload the dishwasher." She chooses to scream, throw a couple of dishes... etc. We say "Looks like you need some time before you're ready to finish unloading. Wanna calm down or go sit out a while?" Now... for her... she could choose to be ticked off for a couple of hours before she'll finish the 5 minutes or less of unloading. Do I think that's child abuse?? Nope....

When one of my friends was younger... her mom grounded her FROM her room for a few hours at a time...

 

:-)

[BigMamaBird]

If my dd4 has reached the point of being sent to her room, it's pretty serious. At that point, she stays in there till whatever emotional storm has passed. Sometimes she calms right down and can come out within minutes. Other times, she's been in there for probably up to an hour because she simply could not settle down. Usually, I send her to her room because I'm getting to a very angry point and it's just better for both of us to be separated.

[aggieamy]

I think sending them to their rooms is a bit different than time out. When my girls were three I'd sit them at a chair in the kitchen and they could not get out. Just had to sit there for three minutes. I consider that time out.

 

Now that they are older if they are fighting with each other, pestering me, disobeying, any range of issues I send them to their rooms. That acts as a time to cool them down and to cool me down. Whoo. Sometimes after dealing with rowdy kids I'm the one that needs to cool down. In there they have stuffed animals and books that they can read on their beds. I'm not against leaving them in there for 30 minutes. I don't feel that's excessive at all. If they were sitting in a chair in the kitchen for 30 minutes with nothing to do, that I wouldn't feel right doing.

 

At this age going to the room is a cool down period and the punishment for a wrongdoing is usually a loss of priviliges to come later.

[Parrothead]

When dd was little, like under 5, time outs were age=minutes. I swear I have no recollection of what we did for 6 and 7. About 8 instead of time outs we used grounding instead. Grounding could be anything from no computer to no electronics to no going outside. I don't think dd has ever been grounded to her room. ETA: Grounding is something that lasts for anywhere from 24 hours to 2 weeks, depending on the situation.

 

She has been sent to her room at about age 8. She could have even been sent to her room for an hour or two. I don't see much difference in being sent to her room to clean and it taking an hour or two with no interaction with anyone else.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Parrothead

[bbmom]

I said 30 minutes. While I think if it is a "time-out" situation (no books, electronics, music, etc.) it should be closer to 15 minutes for an 11 year old, I don't think 30 would be unreasonable.

[dragons in the flower bed]

In there they have stuffed animals and books that they can read on their beds. I'm not against leaving them in there for 30 minutes. I don't feel that's excessive at all. If they were sitting in a chair in the kitchen for 30 minutes with nothing to do, that I wouldn't feel right doing.

 

 

Good point. I hadn't differentiated, perhaps because my kids are completely opposite yours. They just want to get back to the people. I think they would mind much less being on a chair in a room with other people. Or, I should say, chair sitting would take them out of their routine less and therefore be less effective to my ends.

[Pamela H in Texas]

We didn't use punitive time outs. Kids that took "time outs" usually had a choice of location and length of time and even whether or not it was necessary. I think timing them is problematic. A 4yo may well not have gotten himself together in 4 minutes where the 11yo may only need 6 to be ready to work the situation out.

 

For preteens and teens:

 

I do not think that a rare punishment of an hour is a huge problem. A one or two time punishment of a couple hours to even a couple days wouldn't necessarily be abusive or inappropriate. If a parent is finding themselves using any of these more than a couple times though, obviously it's not working and it's time to find something else. These extremes should generally be avoided. I'm just not willing to call it wrong or abusive.

 

And no doubt there will be some that disagree. And some who know me and my stand about discipline (including that I disagree with yelling, spanking, grounding, and punitive time outs) may think it odd. But....

 

I didn't know how to vote though. There is a HUGE difference between age age groups. Toddlers and preschoolers are one thing, school age another, preteens quite another.

Edited February 24, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[mcconnellboys]

I will just add that I do believe the minutes = age rule is for younger children, perhaps under school age. I do think that a ten or eleven year old can be sent to their room for an hour, etc. I can't really imagine keeping a child isolated and alone for many hours or days - I've never really heard of anything like that except in abuse type situations.

[KidsHappen]

There was an other option but I usually send them to their room until they can calm down and come out civil. Sometimes I go to my room until I calm down but I stay longer because sometimes I know that I go back out, I won't remain civil.

 

I do remember being put in time out as a child and being forgotten about once. I fell alseep on the stairs because my uncle had put me there and not even I dared disobey him. My kids have all assured me that I have done the same to them but if so I certainly don't remember it. I guess it sticks with you longer if you are the one who has been forgotten. :001_smile:

[Jenny in Atl]

Never used time out... just not something I saw as useful. Usually it's the parent that needs it more than the kid. It's their inability to comprehend that child can't handle the situation; most often asking them to do too much, be more mature than they are.

 

I watched this gal try to do "time out" at our local library. Her two year-old was laughing, thought it was all a game. Them more he laughed, the angrier she became. It was sad and frustrating to watch. If he could not handle being still for a story time, why the heck make a two year-old do it? Take the boy to the park, let him run till he drops, then read him a story!

[Veritaserum]

In general I use minutes = years in age, but in some situations I tell them to go sit on their beds until they are ready be calm/nice/etc. That could be 1 minute or it could be longer. They can read or play with toys in their rooms. My purpose in moving them out of the situation is as a way to defuse it.

[Aubrey]

Time-out=1min/yr of age, but that kind of time-out, imo, is *generally* for kids 5 & under, depending on the kid. I'd feel ridiculous sending my 9yo to the corner for 10 min--although, if he was *doing* something ridiculous--spinning madly thr the kitchen while I'm getting something hot out of the oven after I've told him a couple of times to knock it off & the littles are copying him? Yeah, I'd send him to sit in the hall for a few min, just to get him out of the rm, & hopefully settled down a little. But that's happened maybe once in the last yr. (Not the spinning madly thr the kitchen; just the time-out, lol.)

 

If I'm sending an older dc to their bedroom--this rarely happens w/ 6yo, but frequently enough w/ 9yo, so I'm figuring that type of consequence starts somewhere in that age range--they're usually being sent to read/play/sleep. I'm specific about what they can & can't do, but the purpose of this is often for *me* to calm down. 30 min, if they're not napping seems ok. They're not nec isolated--an extreme situation might be, Go wait in your bed until I decide what to do w/ you.

 

But generally, I guess it falls more under the heading of redirection in a quarantined environment. :lol: And if, after I'm calm, they sound happy? I don't *tell* them they can come out. I let them play. I fix dinner in peace or I sip a cup of coffee until a) they ask to come out, b) they forget & come out, or c) I need them out for some reason.

 

Given all that, I'm not sure how to vote. :confused:

[Crissy]

I suppose my method is similar to a time out, but certainly not isolation.

I suggest, "You should go sit on your bed." I can't recall the bedroom door ever being shut.

Generally 5 minutes is enough for me to gather my thoughts, go sit with my son and have a discussion about whatever just happened.

[Ravin]

To me the relevant part of that quote is "locked in a room". I would NEVER lock a child in a room. It's a safety hazard (fire, etc.), and just shouldn't be done. Part of the discipline of time out, for us, is obeying the order to go and stay in the designated time-out location--refusal usually results in TV grounding for my DD (and I'm actually dropping time-outs these days in favor of TV grounding, given in hour-long increments).

When my DD is angry/upset, she calms down more effectively with hugs and cuddles than with isolation; if I'm upset I'll call a time out for ME, but usually by the time DD has come to ask for help calming down (i.e., a hug/cuddle), I'm calm enough to help her get calm, too.

 

Now, I have locked MYSELF in the bathroom a time or two, and that was the only time I've had a locked door between us.

[Starr]

Time outs at our house were sitting on the stairs by the kitchen for 3 - 10 minutes. Going to their rooms was more about calming down. Not really with a time frame.

[EKS]

I have on occasion (like maybe 5 times in his whole life, he is 13 now) put my son in his room all afternoon. Frankly, being in his room isn't the end of the world and it *certainly* isn't child abuse. I never *locked* him in. He didn't miss any meals and he was allowed to go to the bathroom and get a drink of water when he wanted to (which for him would be never). Let's see--the only thing he was missing in his room was companionship--he has books, toys, music, all kinds of things to entertain him for hours. He would usually get involved in a creative project because he wasn't focusing his energy on driving the other members of the household crazy.

 

I personally think that the minute thing is ridiculous.

Edited February 24, 2010 by EKS

[LizzyBee]

When I think of time-out, I think of sitting a kid in a chair or facing the wall, and I think age = minutes is a good guideline for that. Sending a child to their room is different in my mind and could reasonably be quite a bit longer. Under no circumstances would I lock a child in the room.

[Desert Rat]

I've always used age=minutes and usually in a kitchen chair or a spot on the floor near me. Now, when by boys are fighting, I do separate them into their own bedrooms for a half hour of quiet play time. They aren't being punished; they just need a break from each other (and I need a break from them!).

ITA, a do remember a few times when I've lost control and put the boys in their rooms for up to an hour so that I could regain control and time out. But, again, it wasn't a punishment for them-just a time to cool off.

[keptwoman]

I have on occasion (like maybe 5 times in his whole life, he is 13 now) put my son in his room all afternoon. Frankly, being in his room isn't the end of the world and it *certainly* isn't child abuse. I never *locked* him in. He didn't miss any meals and he was allowed to go to the bathroom and get a drink of water when he wanted to (which for him would be never). Let's see--the only thing he was missing in his room was companionship--he has books, toys, music, all kinds of things to entertain him for hours. He would usually get involved in a creative project because he wasn't focusing his energy on driving the other members of the household crazy.

 

I personally think that the minute thing is ridiculous.

Us too. We went to a psychologist for extreme behaviour, I mean trashing the house extreme, in our then 9yo. We had to come up with extreme consequences, and the consequence for a destructive temper tantrum was 3 hours in his room, doubled if he behaved poorly on the way there. I had to do it 4 times, doubled once or twice perhaps (hard to remember) for his behaviour to improve out of sight.

I think that hours at a time is pretty severe, but if that's what it takes to stop a childs destructive behaviour then so be it.

I took him food in his room, he has an ensuite and could read books etc, I also took up his school work and worked with him as needed.

I don't think that sending a child to their room for a number of hours is abusive if there is a clear discipline system in place that is leading to improved behaviour (if we were doing it daily for weeks then that would be an issue IMHO) and if they are supplied the necessities of life while in their room.

 

Last week we were having an issue with the F word (same kid) and he got 30 mins for the first utterance, 1 hour for the 2nd, 2 hours for the 3rd etc. I've only had to send him for 2 hours once and the F word using is finished.

 

Standard time out however is 10 mins, 20 if they don't go immediately and time does not start until they have stopped tantruming. If they need a hug to calm, then they get one unless I am in need of time out myself, and then I go to my room to calm down.

Edited February 24, 2010 by keptwoman

[Lovedtodeath]

I put up to 30 minutes. But honestly I would probably go no more than 10 min. I put longer because if I was really upset, I would see it as being better for the kids to be separated for me that long. (So the time out would really be for me not them). I do know that I can definitely get myself under control if I have 30 min. of quiet and deep breathing.

 

Now - if they were crying uncontrollably in there (from being upset themselves) I would go in sooner to try and calm them down just by holding them or something.

:iagree:I put up to an hour, but that is because now if DD calms down, she likes to stay in her room and play dolls for a while. I don't require an hour, but I check on her if she is in there longer than that by her choice.

 

I do know someone that left her 2 year old in the bath for an hour as a punishment for turning on the water. The same woman lets her kids cry for over an hour in a locked room in order to go to bed or nap even if they wake up repeatedly and/or vomit.

[IsabelC]

We don't use TO as a punishment. We only use it for adult cooling down or to prevent an out of control child from hurting anyone. So it's usually very short, minutes rather than hours. Given that it's meant to be a technique to allow time for reflection and calming down, I don't see the point of doing it for hours. Surely if it hasn't worked in the first half an hour, it's not going to help matters to isolate someone for longer periods?

[Melissa in Australia]

I use minutes= age, but once I forgot my ds6:crying: I remembered 1 hour later ( I was busy teaching the others) . I rushed in to tell him he could come out, and he was asleep on his bed.

[Melissa in Australia]

II do know someone that left her 2 year old in the bath for an hour as a punishment for turning on the water. The same woman lets her kids cry for over an hour in a locked room in order to go to bed or nap even if they wake up repeatedly and/or vomit.

 

 

my sister had all her children removed from her care when she put her 2 year old and 6 year old together in the bath unattended. she was living in a women's shelter at the time. she got them all back 6 months later.

[Halcyon]

I don't use time outs at all. I used too, with my first when he was younger, but I've since learned better!

[Saille]

Hmmm...I'm genuinely unsure how to answer. I very rarely do the sitting still type of time out. If I do, it's usually because there's a lot of activity elsewhere in the house, and I can't leave the other kids long enough to escort someone up the stairs (the breakables issue). So I'll tell whoever to sit on the stairs for a couple of minutes until I can reorient things and get to them.

 

I wouldn't time out the youngest for more than five minutes (he's almost four). Then again, he rarely needs even that long to calm down. That's time spent in his room, but he's not otherwise restricted. All three kids have the option of door open or shut, although things like tantrumming, slamming things, etc., are construed as a choice to have the door shut. In such situations, the 6 and 8 year olds are on their own recognizance. They come out when they feel calm, except for those few situations in which I am so wound up that I have to say, "I need a few more minutes." This is usually, however, when a kid is holding on to anger but doesn't want to be in his or her room; they calm down lightning fast in order to come out, but their core anger is not calmed, if you see what I mean. My instinct to extend the time out tends to be correct.

 

I've also been known to look at the family as a whole and conclude that we all need some quiet time. I do sometimes send kids to their rooms for quiet time when that happens. Art, books, audiobooks etc., are all welcome, and rooms are shared territory, so no one child is even necessarily alone. I don't know if that counts as a timeout, though. It's usually a reaction to general exhaustion or house-wide sibling squabbles.

 

Last, my delay-fish has been known to sit at his desk woolgathering for hours rather than finish work he didn't do that morning. I would probably work to avoid this with my other two kids. It reminds me of "You'll sit here til that food is gone!" What I've found is that allowing him to spin things out like that seems to be a necessary step in teaching him to self-regulate. He and I tend to butt heads, so in this case my decision to disengage works out well for us. This has happened a few times, and it illuminates for him exactly how much time he is willing to spend counting pages/problems/whatever rather than actually doing them. It's not a comprehension issue. He flies through them when he actually does them, and comes to tell me that he found them interesting. He's never been told to remain at his desk for any specified length of time. It's more like, "OK, so you have five math problems you didn't finish earlier because you were playing with some legos in your lap. Make sure you bring them to me when you're done so I can check them." I don't know if you'd consider that a time out, either.

[aggieamy]

I don't use time outs at all. I used too, with my first when he was younger, but I've since learned better!

 

I'm intrigued. What do you do instead?

[KrissiK]

For general purposes, I use the age=minutes. However, if my 3 year old is throwing one of her all out tantrums, she's in her room till she calms down, however long that takes.

[Holly IN]

I do the age=min thing. I also do groundings as a loss of something very precious to them which is different for each child. I would NEVER ever lock up a child EVER!! Or deny them food or being part of us. They will recieve a punsishment of some kind whether physical or time out or chores or whatever depending on the offense.

We look at each offense and child then make a decision about punishments. Spanking for one child works but not for the other child. You have to use what WORKS for your child. Not all punishments work the same way. It is different for each child.

 

ETA: I use the tomato staking method!! Instead of being by themselves, they are STAKED to me!! I believe it is so much better than timeouts or being alone in their rooms. However if they are being whiney and really need to rest then yes they can lay down and rest either on my bed or on the couch that way they are truly are resting. In their rooms, they have toys, tv with game hookups and so on. My bedroom or the couch is the rest time for them in regards to time outs.

Holly

Edited February 24, 2010 by Holly IN

[swellmomma]

Depends on which kid it is. With the younger 2 it is age=minutes. WIth my oldest I don't exactly do time out with him, but if he is having a rage/meltdown it can take a long long time, and if it is a rage I often have to use a basket hold on him to keep us all safe and that can be for 20-30 minutes depending how long it takes to calm him down. For the older 2 I typically use grounding, which is usually a loss of privelege for an extended period, so no video games for a week for example, or no friends for 1-2 days etc.

[Melissa in FL]

I think sending them to their rooms is a bit different than time out. When my girls were three I'd sit them at a chair in the kitchen and they could not get out. Just had to sit there for three minutes. I consider that time out.

 

Now that they are older if they are fighting with each other, pestering me, disobeying, any range of issues I send them to their rooms. That acts as a time to cool them down and to cool me down. Whoo. Sometimes after dealing with rowdy kids I'm the one that needs to cool down. In there they have stuffed animals and books that they can read on their beds. I'm not against leaving them in there for 30 minutes. I don't feel that's excessive at all. If they were sitting in a chair in the kitchen for 30 minutes with nothing to do, that I wouldn't feel right doing.

 

At this age going to the room is a cool down period and the punishment for a wrongdoing is usually a loss of priviliges to come later.

 

This is my thinking too. When my kids were little it was a time(according to age) to sit, doing nothing. Now when they get in trouble they usually just need some time alone. I send them to their rooms for usually for just 30 minutes but up to an hour (if it's been an all day kind of thing). dd(9) will sing, read or do a puzzle, ds(13) will usually read or do some schoolwork, sometimes they will start a game by themselves. We do not send dd(5) to her room yet, she really never even needs time-out. Although sometimes if her sister gets sent to her room she will go also (different rooms) just to protest losing her playmate. We also don't call it punishment, I will usually say something like "I think you need some time to yourself, why don't you go in your room for xxx minutes." Usually when I go and tell them they can come out they will be so involved in whatever they found to do that they will still stay in their rooms.

Melissa

[Melissa in FL]

I can't recall the bedroom door ever being shut.

 

 

I agree with this. Doors are never shut in our house unless the kids are dressing.

Melissa

[keptwoman]

We don't use TO as a punishment. We only use it for adult cooling down or to prevent an out of control child from hurting anyone. So it's usually very short, minutes rather than hours. Given that it's meant to be a technique to allow time for reflection and calming down, I don't see the point of doing it for hours. Surely if it hasn't worked in the first half an hour, it's not going to help matters to isolate someone for longer periods?

If it's being used as a calm down technique then I agree. If it's being used as a punishment, then yes, longer times can make a difference.

[katilac]

I didn't vote, because "under 11" is a very broad age range, and I also think your question refers to two completely different things. I don't consider "isolation" and "involuntary relocation" to be equivalent at all. I involuntarily relocate my children all. the. time but that doesn't necessarily equate to isolating them or even confining them to a certain room. It usually means they are being beastly or annoying, and I involuntarily relocate them to anywhere that I am not :D. Yep, it's sometimes for hours (I'll call you when dinner is ready, now GO), but they aren't isolated from the world, just from me.

 

I think of time-out, especially the one-minute-per-age deal, to be a tool for dealing with quite young children ((toddlers and preschoolers)). I really can't imagine telling my 9-yr-old to go into time-out for 9 minutes, and I can't imagine that she would particularly care if she had to sit on a kitchen chair or in her room for 9 minutes, y'know? She does have to leave company (go to her room) if her emotions or behavior aren't under control; that's not really something that can be timed.

 

It's not something I've done, but I don't see sending a school-age child to his room for a few hours to be particularly harsh or punitive. If they had to sit on the bed with hands folded, then yes, all afternoon is a bit much, but if they can cuddle with stuffed animals, read, or even just relax on the bed with no toys allowed . . . eh, that's no biggie, imo. If the child gets that consequence quite often, then the parent might need to reconsider, b/c it can be overly isolating (plus, clearly not working if you have to do it every few days!).

 

Rather than time-out to break a negative pattern, I prefer to take a more active approach and find stuff for the 9-yr-old to do. I oftent take it as a sign that she needs to get outside and get some physical activity, do a few chores, whatever. A ten minute chore serves the same purpose of distraction and redirection, and gets the house a bit cleaner to boot.

 

Oh, and I'm guessing that Knowles may have simply meant confining the child to the room, rather than literally locking him in. It's a fairly common term of speech around here, but I've never known anyone to actually lock the door.

[Peela]

I think there is a big, big difference between a 3 year old and a 10 year old, so I dont subscribe to the minutes=age thing for that reason. A 10 year old can often handle more than 10 minutes. A 3 year old might too...but depends on how traumatised they are feeling. I tihnk its dangerous to set rules for that kind of thing- I would rather stay sensitive to the needs of the moment.

I am not especially into time outs but when you have a kid who throws a lot of long tantrums and they won't be placated and they are being abusive and destructive- a time out can just give everyone some time to settle. My son was like that. My step daughter however used to get time outs for being, well, naughty. She would do things she wasnt allowed to do, deliberately, and a time out was a kind of punishment I guess. I cant remember using time outs with my daughter much.

I prefer time outs and any kind of immediate consequence that allows issues to be got over with quickly, and forgiven quickly- for the sake of everyone's heart and the overall tone of the home. I am sometimes mortified when I read about parents giving long term punishments, or saving punishments for later. I could not bear to hold a punishment over my kids for more than a short time- taking away things in the future such as play dates has never resonated well with me.

[Saille]

ETA: I use the tomato staking method!! Instead of being by themselves, they are STAKED to me!!

 

Holly, I want to preface this by saying that I'm not disagreeing with your post or your methods with your kids. But when I read this, something clicked for me that had been bothering me since I posted last night.

 

I tried this (staking, proximity during tantrums, whatever you want to call it) with my oldest when he was a toddler/preschooler, only to discover that he completely lacked the internal mechanism that causes people to seek alone time when they need it. He would never, ever, ever voluntarily go play quietly in his room, or any room but the one I was in, even if he was clearly sick of my company. I did end up relocating him to his room and putting a gate across it (the door didn't shut properly) several times, because he was tantrumming all over me and would not respond to comfort or voluntarily separate himself. He also had long, high-intensity tantrums and night terrors at that age. I remember googling at two o'clock in the morning and finding one of those babywise type posts...the parents said they locked their three year old in the dark garage when she had night terrors, because she was clearly manipulating them. I cried and cried when I read that.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just posting for those out there who have high-intensity kids...sometimes disengaging IS what they need. You CAN disengage in a loving way. That little inner critic that tells me I should be Marmie and balm all ills with my presence was not correct in my oldest ds's case...although, if he gets the alone time, he comes to me for comfort when he's calm, and I can be Marmie then. The worst parenting mistakes I've made, I've made when I insisted on handling my oldest son's anger with direct action, rather than disengaging and leaving him the opening to come to me when he was ready. And he's gone through stages where that has taken a long time, and walking away/waiting him out has been very difficult.

 

Just putting that out there.

[Pretty in Pink]

I don't time my kids, I just send them to their rooms to cool off. They come out when they are calm. My 11yo will stay up to twenty minutes or so, but he is certainly allowed to come out as soon as he feels like it.

[Sputterduck]

Holly, I want to preface this by saying that I'm not disagreeing with your post or your methods with your kids. But when I read this, something clicked for me that had been bothering me since I posted last night.

 

I tried this (staking, proximity during tantrums, whatever you want to call it) with my oldest when he was a toddler/preschooler, only to discover that he completely lacked the internal mechanism that causes people to seek alone time when they need it. He would never, ever, ever voluntarily go play quietly in his room, or any room but the one I was in, even if he was clearly sick of my company. I did end up relocating him to his room and putting a gate across it (the door didn't shut properly) several times, because he was tantrumming all over me and would not respond to comfort or voluntarily separate himself. He also had long, high-intensity tantrums and night terrors at that age. I remember googling at two o'clock in the morning and finding one of those babywise type posts...the parents said they locked their three year old in the dark garage when she had night terrors, because she was clearly manipulating them. I cried and cried when I read that.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just posting for those out there who have high-intensity kids...sometimes disengaging IS what they need. You CAN disengage in a loving way. That little inner critic that tells me I should be Marmie and balm all ills with my presence was not correct in my oldest ds's case...although, if he gets the alone time, he comes to me for comfort when he's calm, and I can be Marmie then. The worst parenting mistakes I've made, I've made when I insisted on handling my oldest son's anger with direct action, rather than disengaging and leaving him the opening to come to me when he was ready. And he's gone through stages where that has taken a long time, and walking away/waiting him out has been very difficult.

 

Just putting that out there.

 

See.. tomato staking *during* a tantrum doesn't work. That is just giving a child attention for them.

 

You tomato stake for other things, and certainly general disobedience, but I've never come across someone who would tomato stake during a tantrum, until now. That would just encourage them.

[Audrey]

In the Virginia Knowles blog linked to from the Timberdoodle blog posted here on the abuse death thread, Knowles writes that the following is possibly an abusive situations.

 

"Parents who lock their children up in a room for extended periods of time (I'm not talking about reasonable 'time out')"

 

I've heard and used the guideline of having minutes correspond to age, so a four-year-old has four minutes, etc. We don't do time out exactly, but I send the kids to their room so any one of us can cool off, or just to break the kids out of a winding up kind of energy pattern. I still use nine minutes for the nine-year-old when I do this, seven for the seven-year-old, etc.

 

But a couple of weeks ago I was talking to friends about a mutual friend who was struggling to gain control of her child and was sending him to his room for hours at a time. My jaw dropped and I told them the minute guideline, but then I wondered... how unusual is it to put a kid in their room for hours?

 

So, for those of you who do use isolation or involuntary relocation as a consequence, how long do you feel comfortable leaving a child under age eleven in there?

 

 

I put "up to half and hour" but that would be for a 10-11 year old or thereabouts. I used the rule of: 5 minutes, and if after 5 minutes there was no resolution, then another minute per year. So, theoretically, 15 minutes for a 10 year old. I check after the initial 5 minutes and make the call about the extra time then. IME, with time out, the resolution varies depending upon the circumstances, so there really is no "set time." I don't give time-out so much as "punishment," but more as a chance to step away from the situation, calm down and find some resolution to the issue -- even if resolution is as simple as the act of calming down. FWIW, I sometimes give myself a 5 minute time-out to step away from a situation that is frustrating me too much.

ETA: There is no "locking in a room" involved. He's a person, not an animal.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Audrey

[AuntieM]

I think your poll includes a pretty wide developmental range for kids up to age 11. I opted for 30 minutes, but that said, it's a median, appropriate (in our home) for appx 5 to 8yos. This time has significance to kids because you can equate it to something they know, like a half-hour PBS program. It also gives them enough time to think about what's happened and hopefully settle down with a book.

 

For younger kids, less time, but I think you'd need 5 minutes to make an impact at all. For older kids, 9 to 11 yrs, an hour would not be too long, IMO. But longer than that would likely be counterproductive as it gives them too much time to mope.

 

So, an hour max for the older end of your age range. Unless it's the proverbial "don't come out until your room is clean" scenario.:glare:

[Lovedtodeath]

I have had to lock DD in her room by holding the door closed. At times if I didn't she would continue to yell and scream and physically assault me after being "sent" to her room.

[CalicoKat]

no set time amount here. Our goal is self-control. Until they've gotten themselves under control they're sitting in a chair near by me.

 

Self-control is when there's no more tantrum, yelling, kicking, or hollaring.

 

So the timeout is really up to them.

[teachermom2834]

I have sent kids as young as 8 yo to their room for the "afternoon" (2-3 hours) when it has been an awful day. They have books, puzzles, games, toys, a full bathroom. They are capable of entertaining themselves and it has always worked fairly well.

 

I've sent kids that age to bed early (as in 6:00 pm instead of 8:00) when the day just wasn't going anywhere good.

 

I NEVER considered that this was abuse. NEVER even thought about it.

 

No one is locked in anywhere and I've never had a kid "fight" this punishment. Maybe if there was wailing and carrying on I would have thought differently.

 

Wow. I'm really surprised that some consider that abusive. I guess I have to think about that some.

 

Around here it seemed like a reasonable consequence. As in, other people do not need to put up with that kind of behavior. When they can behave appropriately they can join us again.

[Saille]

See.. tomato staking *during* a tantrum doesn't work. That is just giving a child attention for them.

 

You tomato stake for other things, and certainly general disobedience, but I've never come across someone who would tomato stake during a tantrum, until now. That would just encourage them.

 

I can think of several books I've read that have specifically talked about staying with/holding toddlers/preschoolers during tantrums, including some attachment parenting books, and Becoming the Parent You Want To Be. I think I took away from these books the idea that I should be able to stay calm no matter what, and that being physically beside/with my child was always preferable. It took me a while to understand that this wasn't going to work with ds.

[Halcyon]

I'm intrigued. What do you do instead?

 

I get down to my kid's eye level and talk with them. If they can't talk because they're too upset, I sit with them. It really depends on what they did that bothered me. I work hard (only successful about 60% of the time!!! :001_smile:) to see things not from my perspective, but from theirs. What's going on in their head that's causing them to act this way? How am I contributing? Did I sleep enough last night, or not (usually not) and is this causing me to be less patient, less understanding, more short-tempered? Now, if the child is going ballistic (as happened tonight with my 7 yo) I try and think what's going on with them? I knew my son had gotten up too early this morning and he was very tired, so I told him he would need to go to bed early as he was tired. I told him his behavior was poor, but that I also behave poorly whenI don't sleep well. I tried not to accuse him or blame him or 'get hard' on him, because he is hard enough on himself. My younger child (4) cannot tolerate time-outs as he is very sensitive, but he also rarely acts up. When he does, he's been known to go and sit on his bed with a toy on his own.

 

I will say, however, that I put myself in time-out a lot when I feel myself losing my temper! :lol: I definitely think it's a child by child thing, a family thing. But I think, first and foremost, that when a child is acting up we need to look inwards, speak softly and clearly, and try not to 'punish'. For my kids, punishing is like me putting up a wall--they will push back harder. Whereas if I get "softer" with them, more understanding, more quiet, more caring, they quickly 'come to their senses' :) Not always (and I am by no means a patient person) but we try.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Halcyon

[Halcyon]

I can think of several books I've read that have specifically talked about staying with/holding toddlers/preschoolers during tantrums, including some attachment parenting books, and Becoming the Parent You Want To Be. I think I took away from these books the idea that I should be able to stay calm no matter what, and that being physically beside/with my child was always preferable. It took me a while to understand that this wasn't going to work with ds.

 

It works very well with mine. I don't presume to know anyone else's child, however. I wouldd probably have a different parenting style if I had different kids! :)