Do you let your kid's behavior over the past year, affect their Christmas presents?

[Tap]

Would you buy different gifts, based solely on your child's decisions over the previous year? Kind of a Naughty/Nice consequence....or reward? If you do, how do you handle equality between kids?

[fairfarmhand]

No. I want Christmas to be a magical time of fun. I don't want it to be about punishment.

 

But I do understand the sentiment because sometimes it's just not fun to buy for a kid who's been nothing but a headache for a year.

 

Some kids are hard. :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[SparklyUnicorn]

Absolutely not. 

[Myra]

Absolutely not - no way!  Christmas is a time of celebration at our house.  Consequences and rewards for behavior are meted out when the event occurred and then we move on - no grudges or long term reperussions.  Christmas is time for being together and celebrating our family.

 

 

Myra

[tammyw]

No way! But we aren't big on punishments either.

[Seasider]

No, Christmas gifts are an expression of love and thus unconditional.

 

However, there are years that the budget affects gift giving. But that's felt evenly, across the board.

 

In our house, poor behavior is typically met with reduction in privileges outside the home. Something that is administered throughout the year.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Seasider

[SparklyUnicorn]

And really where is the connection between bad behavior and getting less for Christmas?  It doesn't seem like a logical punishment to me.

 

 

[ktgrok]

Never. God gave us Jesus despite humanity breaking pretty much every rule ever, and not being particularly repentant about it. The entire point of the holiday is unconditional love and good gifts for the sake of giving them, not because people earned them. I can't earn God's love, and my kids don't earn their presents. 

[tm919]

Nope, no effect.

[Catwoman]

I agree with everyone else who has posted so far. Christmas is Christmas. The Naughty List does not exist in my home. :)

[Spryte]

No.  

[Ali in OR]

Agreeing with previous posters--Christmas is a time for love, and gift-giving is an act of love.

[TammyS]

Not directly, no.  But I do use that information in guiding decisions about what I think they are mature enough to handle, either in terms of the potential danger something might pose (tools, internet, etc) or in their willingness to care for something (anything pricey or alive).

[hornblower]

Nope, wouldn't even occur to me. Presents are not tied to any bhvr. They're an expression of love & my love does not waver because of how a child behaves.

 

I think if anything, when times have been tough - behaviorally - & if we've not been connecting as well, I'd go the extra mile on a present to try to get back to happy feelings, even if only for a few moments. 

[Catwoman]

Not directly, no. But I do use that information in guiding decisions about what I think they are mature enough to handle, either in terms of the potential danger something might pose (tools, internet, etc) or in their willingness to care for something (anything pricey or alive).

I think that is a very reasonable approach. Keeping your child safe is more important than buying them a wish list item that they aren't ready to handle.

[regentrude]

No.

[DawnM]

No, the whole "Santa is watching you" thing is a manipulative tool and I find it repulsive.

[fairfarmhand]

Not directly, no.  But I do use that information in guiding decisions about what I think they are mature enough to handle, either in terms of the potential danger something might pose (tools, internet, etc) or in their willingness to care for something (anything pricey or alive).

 

Yes. This is different than punishing.

[Reefgazer]

No.  If they need correction, I do so immediately and it's related to the infraction.  Plus, I'm too lazy to record-keep their infractions for end-of-year gift punishment.  

[Laurie4b]

No, I wouldn't give different gifts based on behavior except in very special circumstances (and those would likely be dependent on having an older child) and then only in consultation with a minor's therapist. 

 

My view is  influenced by my Christian religious beliefs which would make that kind of consequence kind of the opposite point of Christmas.  I think that even if I was not religious that I still wouldn't do it . It has too big of a risk of producing alienation vs. helping a child to change behavior in the relationship in a positive way. I think the better message is "Despite how crappy you treat us, we will not stop loving you. We understand that gifts are a concrete expression of love in your eyes, so we are using gifts to give you that message."  Although there might also be a time in an unusual situation especially with an older teen in which a more therapeutic message would be:  "When you treat people really crappy, they aren't real keen on putting themselves out for you. This is what you can expect in life when you treat people like that."  But that is pulling out the big guns and as I said, I would only do it in consultation with a mental health professional. 

 

ETA: typo which changed meaning of sentence

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Laurie4b

[Reefgazer]

But the Santa song says there is a connection!

And really where is the connection between bad behavior and getting less for Christmas?  It doesn't seem like a logical punishment to me.

 

[happypamama]

No. Of course not. Just as God isn't holding my past misdeeds against me regarding His greatest Gift, I'm not holding my children's against them regarding their gifts.

 

I agree with a PP who said she takes into account maturity and ability to handle things appropriately. That's different. I won't give them things they can't handle.

[frogger]

Mark this down as the first unanimous response to a question in The Hive historical record.

 

 

I agree with the above posters.

[Joyofsixreboot]

No. I do take into account if kid is responsible, etc. no expensive iPods for a five yo who can't find their shoes for example but not based on behavior. That would seem to guarantee bad behavior ( at least if I was the kid).

[Bluegoat]

No, though I have made the connection, verbally, with them being very materialistic and naggy, to gifts.  It's similar to what I might do, more concretely, other times of the year - if I can't go into a shop without them spending the whole time nagging for treats, I will impose a total treat fast for a period.

 

It would have to be pretty bad for me to do that at CHristmas, but on the other hand the ads and stuff displayed in the shops can bring out the worst in them that way.

[SKL]

I would if it was important to their well-being.  Otherwise, no.

 

One of my kids has issues with sweets (and related).  She loves them, but she really shouldn't have them for both physical and psychological reasons.  I struggle with how to handle this every time a "fun" day comes along.

 

I can imagine a lot of toys being a problem for some kids, psychologically.  I could totally see just giving such kids one simple gift, for the child's own good.  And I could see the child, and others, viewing this as a punishment or even hate. 

 

Basically, you can't win with some kids.  :(

[bolt.]

I definitely don't do any kind of naughty/nice thing, and I try to keep sibling presents generally well balanced.

 

The only thing I learn from their behaviour is what kinds of things they might be ready/unready for, and what things might be most wanted, or most enjoyed.

[BlsdMama]

Would you buy different gifts, based solely on your child's decisions over the previous year? Kind of a Naughty/Nice consequence....or reward? If you do, how do you handle equality between kids?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Sorry, the very thought horrifies me.  We give gifts in celebration and remembrance of Christ's birth.  I cannot fathom tying it to Santa and the naughty/nice list.  

[tm919]

Mark this down as the first unanimous response to a question in The Hive historical record.

 

 

I agree with the above posters.

I've been waiting for some contrarian to come along and make it un-unanimous.

[PeterPan]

Ok, I'll fess up.  I took away a Christmas present from dd one year for something she did.  And it was like under the tree, wrapped, and then gone.  I later gave it to her (like a couple weeks later).  But she knew that she had done something that was SO expensive and intentional a misdeed that it required a consequence.  And it wasn't like she got no presents--she lost one of three.  And this was a dc able to understand cause/effect.  You mentioned ASD in your other thread, and that would make something like this much more complicated.  I think in that case I'd go loving natural consequences.  Like I'm sorry, but the thing you broke cost $80 and I only had $90 to spend on you for Christmas, so you'll still get gifts but only $20 of gifts.  And I'd then be *really* generous on that and make sure it was still three awesome gifts, even if the total was just (a very fudged) $20.  And that assumes the dc could handle that as instructive, without melting down.  If they're going to melt down, it wouldn't be worth it and I'd find other consequences.  

 

So in some cases, when the event is near the it's a logical consequence, it could be reasonable.  But I'd make sure it's actually instructive and coming across as a natural consequence.  If a dc has so many behavioral challenges that you're that overwhelmed and exhausted that you want to just walk away, no presents, then it's time to call in a behaviorist or get some professional help if that hasn't already been done.

 

Frogger, sorry to break the record.  :D

Edited December 14, 2015 by OhElizabeth

[prairiewindmomma]

I wouldn't give cash gift cards to a teen who would likely spend/barter for something inappropriate (i.e. my friend's teen used his visa gift card in exchange for pot) but other than that, no.

[J-rap]

No.  However, I wouldn't get a gift that I know would likely add to their poor decisions/behavior or whatever it is.

[Night Elf]

I would never make things unequal for children. That can breed resentment both against the parents and the other children. Misbehavior should be dealt with as it happens, not saved up for one special holiday.

[gardenmom5]

no.

I spend roughly the same on each child.  when they were younger, I was more scrupulous about that.

I did have to comfort a drama child that those two gifts were the sam e amount of money as the five gifts someone else received.

 

kids are different.  they have different needs, different personalities, different ability to "behave", etc.  when they were young - it never even occured to me to hold back gifts to a difficult child. I could easily see my grandmother doing that.  in fact, she did simliar - all it did was create resentment.

 

now - it's pretty rough. and most of them know what they're getting.  (heck 2ds grabbed the office chair (which I bought used off craigslist. cost the same as one from costco - only much MUCH higher quality. and real leather - not pleather, which litters all over the place.) -  I did make him try it out to make sure it worked for him - and he now refuses to let me put it under the tree.  he did say I "could" put it under the tree on christmas eve with a big bow . . . ).  it was the only thing he asked for.  anything else is gravy to him.

[frogger]

I'm not sure that it counts as punishment for being naughty when you don't get your child something that they can't handle because of safety or lack of maturity. It would be an awful gift to give something that hurt you or died as a result of your neglect which in most cases would cause sorrow.

 

If that is the case then I do that too but in reality I'm trying to get them a good gift that is appropriate for them which may be harder for some children than for others

[HS Mom in NC]

No.  Gift giving is about gift giving, not about earning stuff (like wages or salaries.) Since Christmas is mostly a religious holiday for me, I wouldn't even consider an earned approach to it.  The grace/salvation of God is a free, unmerited gift that no one can earn. Jesus came to earth give us that grace/salvation. We celebrate his arrival here to do that at Christmas time. To make Christmas gift giving earned would be in direct conflict with my theological and doctrinal beliefs.

Do I think there should be consequences for bad behavior?  Sure.  If you don't get your school work done with a good attitude then you don't get privileges like screen time after school.  If you did a substandard job on your chore, you redo the chore until it's done correctly. If you don't accept the consequence and give me more attitude then you can lose playdate time or get extra chores. If you destroy your own toy on purpose you'll have to do without it-I won't replace it.  If you destroy someone else's toy on purpose you'll have to replace it with your allowance money.  If you don't have allowance money you'll have to work it off in extra chores and I'll replace it.  That kind of thing. 

If the OP is actually considering punishing a child by withholding Christmas gifts and nost just doing an informal poll out of curiosity to see if withholding Christmas gifts is something anyone would do , I suggest seeing a family counselor for other parenting ideas and to address any underlying ones. I know the original post isn't enough to go on, but I'm the parent of a formerly traumatized child and our adoption agency is a good one that provides continuing training with the latest research and specialists. I understand how serious this can be, so on the off chance something more significant is going on, I'm posting in detail on this topic.

If you're dealing with a formerly traumatized child or child with some sort of mental health issue you need to understand right now that most of those children do not process consequences as cause and effect the same way neurotypical children do-the brain research proves it. See a specialist that has been trained in that specific specialty.  Few are, so do your research.   You need professional help for that kind of thing.  Consequences are not going to work.  I repeat, consequences are not going to work.  In case you didn't hear that, consequences are not going to work. 

 

I personally know an adoptive parent of a traumatized child who refuses to accept the science that her child cannot be parented with consequences to modify behavior and it's a terrible mess that's getting worse. Few of us will have much of anything to do with her anymore because she insists she understands the research but refuses to adjust her parenting accordingly because of her pride.  It's a rare extreme example, but it happens sometimes.

[Ellie]

No. Just...no.

 

Inappropriate behavior would have been dealt with when it happened. No need to punish by withholding Christmas presents.

[felicity]

This year we kind of are. We are trying to give experiences instead of stuff and I know my oldest would love to have a membership to the rock climbing gym nearby. But he's in high school and really not doing well and needs the extra time to study so we're going to give him something else and wait on the gym.

 

It's not like he's going to get less than the other kids or he's not going to get gifts, he's just not going to get this specific thing because he needs more, not less, time to study. We'll probably take him climbing on a day pass over break.

[HomeAgain]

Even at their worst, they're at their best.

 

I love that quote and have carried it with me over the years.  It means that a child is really trying - they may not have the skills, confidence or maturity to handle all situations, but they're trying.  There are not many children who intentionally try to be pains in the rear as a matter of life.

 

In our house correction happens immediately, teaching happens constantly.  There's no way I'd adjust Christmas as a reward/punishment for year-long behavior.  Christmas is not about being good or naughty.  It's about unconditional giving and sharing.  I'd be more apt to try to figure out why I felt the need to be vindictive at this time of year than to take from my kid.

[lllll]

nm

Edited December 15, 2015 by w11

[TammyS]

I'm not sure that it counts as punishment for being naughty when you don't get your child something that they can't handle because of safety or lack of maturity. It would be an awful gift to give something that hurt you or died as a result of your neglect which in most cases would cause sorrow.

 

If that is the case then I do that too but in reality I'm trying to get them a good gift that is appropriate for them which may be harder for some children than for others

 

But I think it goes beyond just "not killing something".

 

If I had a kid who was really hard on stuff, he's not getting an expensive bike/skateboard/stereo, etc.

 

If I had a kid who was difficult about picking things up, he wouldn't be getting a large lego set with a million pieces to scatter all over (and shred my feet with).

 

Those kids would get presents, but if what they want intersects with what I don't want them to have because of how I think they will behave with it, then they are getting something else.  Not a non-present, like socks (which are fine if they aren't the only present, you know what I mean).  But not what they'd prefer, either.

[purplejackmama]

Oh heck no!!!

[purplejackmama]

Double post

Edited December 14, 2015 by purplejackmama

[Mergath]

Definitely not. What an awful thing to do to a child, especially if a person has multiple kids and there would be an obvious inequality. That would have broken my heart as a child.

[Twolittleboys]

Honestly, I am a bit more torn than most here. I am not so much thinking about behaviour over the year - but behaviour in the very recent past (say the last couple of weeks) might influence me. Not so much in a planned way but let's say I happen to see something in a store that I think ds would like but am still fuming from a fight earlier in the day... I might be a bit less inclined to buy it than I would have been on a different day.

 

Right now I am struggling a bit with a game I bought for older ds. Generally, everyone gets a board game at Christmas and I did buy one for him. However, he already has far more than his brother (not sure why, probably just because he is older and has had more holidays) AND is really bad about sharing (as in he won't let us play it if he can't/doesn't want to play himself). I guess it IS his game and he has the right but it still upsets me a bit with board games (or books) as I think sharing them is really no big deal. Still, I am considering not giving him the game but instead making it my present (which of course he could use anytime he wanted to)...

 

That being said, I do try hard to make the gifts fairly even and older ds is still getting plenty of presents (including his two biggest wishes which are quite expensive this year).

[Tanaqui]

As a punishment? No. Punishments or consequences or whatever you want to call it should make sense in context and be close to the misbehavior. It does no good to say in Christmas "Son, you haven't cleaned your room all year, so now I won't get you any toys" or "Sweetie, you hit your sister weekly from June to November, so you don't get any books". You should have addressed the room cleaning or whatever at the time.

 

If the behavior means that a gift is probably not suitable, then I wouldn't get it, though. The kid who has yet to learn not to play his drums at midnight isn't going to get a new set of very loud speakers, because I don't want to turn their gift into a reason for me to nag. Maybe a new set of headphones.

[RoundAbout]

Umm.. no. I don't believe in the concept of "naughty children" just children who need more guidance in particular areas.  I wouldn't withhold Christmas presents for needing to learn more emotional regulation/impulse control/social skills, etc. anymore than I would for a child doing poorly in math or reading.  

[MomatHWTK]

Nope, my kids get unconditional love- a lot of lectures and maybe some pouting on my part from time to time- but unconditional love.  

[marbel]

No.

 

Gift-giving time is not the time for that.  Plus, what others said about Christ.

[QueenCat]

No, never. I find the notion very mean spirited. It's one thing to not get a child something that they aren't ready to take care of, it's another to give them less than other kids in the family or take away gifts.