Kids who sneak food

[amy g.]

Oh, I didn't mean that you should be fine with finding ingredients missing when you get ready to cook. That would drive me crazy.

 

I'm just trying to imagine one of my kids getting into food without asking. I can't picture it.

 

My 18 year old will even text me if I'm away from the house. "Do you mind if I have an ice cream bar?" Or "Is it okay for me to open a new bag of chips?"

 

I really don't think of myself as a strict parent, but I must be more demanding than I think.

 

For me, yes the food belongs to everyone in the family, but if you didn't buy it yourself with your own money, it is just common respect to ask before taking it. Also, when they ask, I almost always say yes, although I might require them to eat something more nutritious first.

[SKL]

My family didn't have extra when we were kids, but I still had a brother who ate more than his share.  He would steal everyone else's goodies after eating his own.  I don't think abundance is the issue.

 

Out of 6 kids, he was the only one who had that tendency.  Myself, I didn't think about eating outside of meal times.  I was too busy thinking about other things.  When I got more than a few bites of candy, I'd hide it away and (if it escaped my klepto brother) eventually it would get stale and end up in the garbage.

 

So I really don't know why some kids seem to be wired to sneak, hoard, binge, and others are not.  I do know it is an incredibly difficult issue to resolve.

[Bluegoat]

I have one in particular that will do this, and her younger brother will follow.  They will even eat sugar right from the bag. 

 

So, I think the urge is pretty normal.  It does annoy me, because they do get enough sweets, it's expensive, they make a mess, and I don't have what I need when I go to bake.

 

A few tempting things I just try to store higher, but it doesn't work for stuff like sugar, I have limited space.  In the end I started giving out a punishment when it happened - it wasn't like they were too small to understand or ask, or not do it if I said nor, nor was it the case that they were deprived.  That seemed to help though it took a few times.

[Catwoman]

Oh, I didn't mean that you should be fine with finding ingredients missing when you get ready to cook. That would drive me crazy.

I'm just trying to imagine one of my kids getting into food without asking. I can't picture it.

My 18 year old will even text me if I'm away from the house. "Do you mind if I have an ice cream bar?" Or "Is it okay for me to open a new bag of chips?"

I really don't think of myself as a strict parent, but I must be more demanding than I think.

For me, yes the food belongs to everyone in the family, but if you didn't buy it yourself with your own money, it is just common respect to ask before taking it. Also, when they ask, I almost always say yes, although I might require them to eat something more nutritious first.

You're probably not demanding at all; you just have polite kids. My ds17 is the same way -- he always lets me know when he's going to snack on something, even though I have never required -- or even suggested -- that he do it. :)

[maize]

 

I'm just trying to imagine one of my kids getting into food without asking. I can't picture it.

 

.

.

.

 

 

I really don't think of myself as a strict parent, but I must be more demanding than I think.

 

Most likely your kids are just relatively compliant and have good impulse control.

[amy g.]

Most likely your kids are just relatively compliant and have good impulse control.

I think you are right about impulse control.

[Catwoman]

Having to ask permission to eat food did not work well for me as a child.

 

And honestly ? It makes me uncomfortable when my kids do it.

My ds doesn't ask for permission; he just lets me know when he's getting something to eat.

 

He has his own stash of snacks in his computer and media rooms, but when he gets something from the kitchen, he tells me. I suspect it might be so I remember to buy more when I go to the store. :)

[Katy]

FTR, many kids in foster care (even little ones) will binge when they can have as much food as they want.  Sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, sometimes for years.  Even if they eat themselves ill daily. It is quite common to hear foster parents have rules about children never getting their own food, and only being allowed to eat one snack over the age of five, and never be able to eat away from the table or in front of a screen.

 

Some of that is due to a history of neglect - not knowing when they'll get their next meal.  In other kids, it's the result of having a family culture to only eat in front of a tv.

[Zinnia]

My kids ask before eating anything. They don't snack much at all. In the den we have bowls of candy left over from their Christmas stockings and even some from Halloween. About every two weeks, someone asks me if they can have a piece of candy after lunch.

 

In the dining room there are cupcakes my Dd made for Valentine's Day. They ate one with dinner that night, but no one has touched them since. I'm going to tell them that what doesn't get eaten today gets thrown away so it doesn't start molding.

 

I do keep chocolate chips in the freezer for my teenager. I think she only eats them when she has PMS. Dh also eats them if he has skipped lunch and is starving. I try to make sure we always have 2 bags so if I want some for math counters or baking them we have them.

 

If one of my kids started snacking or "sneaking food" I would look at what they are eating for meals. Are they getting enough protein and fat to sustain them to the next meal, or are they eating foods that are going to raise their blood sugar then send them into a crash.

 

Yesterday, my 7 year old asked if she could have an apple after History. I looked at the time, and it was 3:00 pm. I hadn't even made lunch yet. No wonder she was hungry!

 

I do find the concepts of binging and sneaking and locking up food to be foreign.

 

My family of origin was like this.  When we got candy for holidays, it lasted us for months.  

 

My dh's family?  Not so much.

 

Imagine my surprise when I gave birth to 3 of 4 kids that just mow food down.  They seem to have no internal limits when it comes to anything "good" (and that could be the chicken or candy or rice or whatever they like).  They just eat until it is gone.  They never, ever forget about something.  They will ask about it and find times to eat it until it is quickly gone.  

 

It just is how they are.  And of course, we work on impulse control and manners and the whole nine yards.  But it's not like I created this with neglect or bad parenting.  For my family of origin, this was difficult to understand, and we've had some uncomfortable moments along the way about my childrens' seemingly lack of impulse control (so they eat all the candy in the candy dish) or desire to finish off things (so they eat most of a box of cereal for breakfast, then ask for it again for snack because they know it's in the house, and it tastes good, and they haven't forgotten about it in lieu of something else).  It has been really difficult for some members of my FOO to understand, and they've made it into more than it is. 

[HomeAgain]

Our only binging problem here is cheese.  The 7yo loves it so much that a good half pound will disappear in a day if I don't regulate him.  We buy single serving packages for him and he knows he can have up to 3 a day. 

 

My kids don't really binge on sweets, though.  We allow as much as they want at a time on holidays and then go to a mostly low-sugar diet the rest of the time because I've found that the more sugar in our food, the more the body wants it.  Even our crackers are checked to make sure they don't contain HFCS (so no Wheat Thins or Saltines here, but Triscuits are okay).  It keeps the amount they do choose to eat on holidays lower and of more value.  That's the other thing, usually a want of sweets is a want for fat/protein.  They'd rather have chocolate over suckers or Skittles.  But if I offer a substitute of Greek yogurt w/honey, they're more likely to be okay with that.

 

 

I think in your case I'd keep a lock box.  Don't make a big deal about it, just quietly install one in the pantry and use it for everything you don't want the kids to get while you examine eating habits in the house.

[maize]

My family of origin was like this. When we got candy for holidays, it lasted us for months.

 

My dh's family? Not so much.

 

Imagine my surprise when I gave birth to 3 of 4 kids that just mow food down. They seem to have no internal limits when it comes to anything "good" (and that could be the chicken or candy or rice or whatever they like). They just eat until it is gone. They never, ever forget about something. They will ask about it and find times to eat it until it is quickly gone.

 

It just is how they are. And of course, we work on impulse control and manners and the whole nine yards. But it's not like I created this with neglect or bad parenting. For my family of origin, this was difficult to understand, and we've had some uncomfortable moments along the way about my childrens' seemingly lack of impulse control (so they eat all the candy in the candy dish) or desire to finish off things (so they eat most of a box of cereal for breakfast, then ask for it again for snack because they know it's in the house, and it tastes good, and they haven't forgotten about it in lieu of something else). It has been really difficult for some members of my FOO to understand, and they've made it into more than it is.

Funny how much stuff is in our genes isn't it?

 

I can't count the number of times my husband, who grew up in a household of generally compliant kids, has thrown up his hands in frustration at stuff our kids do and moaned "I was never like that as a kid!"

 

Ah, you see dear, I was very much like that as a kid. Sorry for contributing my genes to the mix... :)

 

Parents who are convinced that their kids behave in xyz manner primarily because of their parenting mostly make me roll my eyes. Parenting has some impact of course but the raw material you are dealt changes everything.

[StephanieZ]

I think in your case I'd keep a lock box.  Don't make a big deal about it, just quietly install one in the pantry and use it for everything you don't want the kids to get while you examine eating habits in the house.

 

This is horrifying. What an awful idea. 

[HomeAgain]

This is horrifying. What an awful idea. 

 

If the idea of a lockbox is horrifying I can only imagine what history studies must do to you.

[StephanieZ]

If the idea of a lockbox is horrifying I can only imagine what history studies must do to you.

 

Huh???

[SKL]

dp

Edited February 18, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

As far as parenting and in-born wiring, I was of course one of those "my kids will never get away with that" moms.  I was really impressed with my oldest, who started out being an excellent rule-follower.  At 1yo I could put a sweet on her tray / table, within reach, and tell her she could eat it only after she finished the rest of her meal.  She would eat every bite of her meal and then eat the sweet.  Talk about self-control!  I was obviously a great mom and she was a great kid ... fast forward 4 years and she became my sweet sneaker/hoarder.  No idea why.  I didn't make any of those "no-no" parenting mistakes that are supposed to prevent these things.

[Pippen]

Well, I can tell you what not to do.

 

Don't make it into a thing. I still remember the sheer ridiculousness of being given a serious talking to by my Dad 'because I was upsetting my mum by eating the cooking chocolate.'

 

Why did I nick the cooking chocolate ? Because it was there, and it was yummy. Certainly not to 'hurt and upset my mother'.

 

My personal approach as the mum is that if the food is in the house, the kids are welcome to it. If I don't want them to eat chocolate chips, I don't buy chocolate chips. If, on the other hand, the worst thing they do is take a handful of the chocolate chips I was saving to make cookies, oh well, no cookies. 

 

The absolutely easiest way to deal is simply don't have foods in the house you don't want the kids to eat. Conversely, only buy foods you are happy for the kids to eat. I buy enormous bunches of bananas b/c it matters not one bit to me how many bananas someone eats.

 

PS I still eat the cooking chocolate. 

 

This would be my attitude also. My solution was to stock the cupboards with a bag of chocolate chips, and also stock an alternative place that the kids didn't know about (which in my case was a crock I repurposed without them realizing it). They could use the cupboard chocolate chips for baking, pancakes, or occasional snitching and I'd still have a few bags in reserve so I wasn't caught empty handed. 

[fairfarmhand]

Funny how much stuff is in our genes isn't it?

 

I can't count the number of times my husband, who grew up in a household of generally compliant kids, has thrown up his hands in frustration at stuff our kids do and moaned "I was never like that as a kid!"

 

Ah, you see dear, I was very much like that as a kid. Sorry for contributing my genes to the mix... :)

 

Parents who are convinced that their kids behave in xyz manner primarily because of their parenting mostly make me roll my eyes. Parenting has some impact of course but the raw material you are dealt changes everything.

 

I was the compliant, people pleasing kid.

 

The old quote "You'll never pay for your raising until you raise your own..."

 

Meh. I'm paying for my dh's raising. Not fair,

[Tanaqui]

This is horrifying. What an awful idea. 

 

Why?

[Bluegoat]

This is horrifying. What an awful idea. 

 

I am also confused about this. 

[Catwoman]

Why?

  

I am also confused about this.

 

Well, I'm not Stephanie, but I assume she thinks it's a terrible idea to literally lock food away from your family.

 

I must admit that it seems pretty odd to me, as well.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I do not like the idea of locking away food.  It seems to be a good way to set up eating disorders.  I'm all for nutritional education.  I'm all for helping  young kids make good food choices.  I'm all for providing healthy choices and healthy modeling.  But putting food off limits like that can set up problems - maybe not for everyone but certainly for some. 

 

 

[Ali in OR]

I don't know. If my chocolate chips kept disappearing, I don't think I would have a problem with locking some away to make sure I had them when I needed them. I don't see the harm. I only grocery shop once a week and I wouldn't want someone else's sweet tooth messing up my baking plans.

 

Incidentally, did you know chocolate chips are cheaper from about November through February? They are here anyway. My theory is because it is easier to ship in cooler weather. So I stock up and buy during those months, and at the moment I probably have a dozen bags of chocolate chips. I wouldn't do this if anyone here had a problem with eating them all though!

[marbel]

  

Well, I'm not Stephanie, but I assume she thinks it's a terrible idea to literally lock food away from your family.

 

I must admit that it seems pretty odd to me, as well.

 

I think the use of the word "horrifying" with no explanation has people curious.  I'm one of them.  

 

Honestly, that kind of comment just isn't helpful.  The OP, and maybe other people reading the thread, are looking for help with a problem. Of course there are going to be different opinions, but to make a quick comment like that with no explanation of reasoning behind it is, well, just not helpful. "Horrifying" is a pretty strong term. 

 

I've never locked up food, but I can't figure out what is horrifying about it.

 

Though I do put candy in a place that only my husband and I know, and I dole it out at my whim.   :-)

[Tanaqui]

  

Well, I'm not Stephanie, but I assume she thinks it's a terrible idea to literally lock food away from your family.

 

I must admit that it seems pretty odd to me, as well.

 

Chocolate chips aren't food. They're ingredients. If they get eaten, nobody can use them to bake.

 

It's not like we're suggesting she locks up her fridge and all her cabinets - just a few expensive items that are either planned for cooking with (the chips) or that ought to be doled out fairly so everybody gets a more-or-less equal share (Christmas candies).

 

I know what she means. I want to know why she thinks that the idea of having some things that are reserved as "not-for-everyday" is "horrifying".

[HomeAgain]

Poorly executed snark attack

 

Do say you're talking about the idea that my thoughts are "horrifying" and not the fact that I think if something as mundane as locking away special ingredients from people you can't trust is "horrifying" then it must be on par with truly horrifying events like massacres.

 

Please, tell me that.  I fail to think that my thoughts are a poorly executed snark ATTACK in response to a drive-by hyperbolic posting.

[maize]

I don't know. If my chocolate chips kept disappearing, I don't think I would have a problem with locking some away to make sure I had them when I needed them. I don't see the harm. I only grocery shop once a week and I wouldn't want someone else's sweet tooth messing up my baking plans.

 

Incidentally, did you know chocolate chips are cheaper from about November through February? They are here anyway. My theory is because it is easier to ship in cooler weather. So I stock up and buy during those months, and at the moment I probably have a dozen bags of chocolate chips. I wouldn't do this if anyone here had a problem with eating them all though!

 

 

I agree. If making sure I had chocolate chips when I happened to want to make cookies or something was important to me, or if I needed to keep candy/treats to use as incentives or whatever without little folks getting into them, I'd have no problem with locking them away. Surely I'm not the only mom here who has hidden stuff so kids wouldn't find it?

 

Now if someone were suggesting that all food be locked away in the absence of a severe  psychological/behavioral problem in which food access needed to be limited (seems I've heard of some such situations) then that would be weird. But I'm totally fine with the idea of chocolate chips being locked away but the kids still have access to plenty of other stuff in the fridge/pantry. I'm even OK with parents restricting eating to official meal/snack times and only what parents dole out as long as kids are getting enough at those times and aren't actually suffering from serious hunger in between. It's not my approach (too much of a food grazer myself to expect kids not to graze) but I don't think it's abusive or anything.

 

Most of my kids are actually great about keeping their hands off of treats without first getting permission. They've got a fridge and pantry full of stuff they can eat anytime, I can't remember a time when a child older than 4 or so snuck treats that aren't generally considered open access. If they did though it wouldn't be a big deal to me. I was a treat sneaker myself as a kid (eh, I still get myself a treat when I have a craving!) Mostly when there's special stuff I use it as an incentive so if they want something they ask me what they can do to earn it. Works well--they get their treat, I get some task or assignment done without complaint :)

[Catwoman]

Chocolate chips aren't food. They're ingredients. If they get eaten, nobody can use them to bake.

 

It's not like we're suggesting she locks up her fridge and all her cabinets - just a few expensive items that are either planned for cooking with (the chips) or that ought to be doled out fairly so everybody gets a more-or-less equal share (Christmas candies).

 

I know what she means. I want to know why she thinks that the idea of having some things that are reserved as "not-for-everyday" is "horrifying".

Many people snack on chocolate chips, so I would consider them to be food. :)

 

I absolutely understand telling family members not to eat certain things because you need them for a meal or for baking -- it's the "locking it up" part that I disagree with.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have used the "horrifying" description, but I do disagree with the concept of putting food in a lockbox or in a locked cabinet, because it doesn't deal with the problem of Plain Jane's kids lying about who is taking the food. In my mind, the lying is the bigger issue.

[StephanieZ]

Why?

 

Uh, locking food up isn't horrifying to most of you?

 

I find it a horrifying concept to have food locked away from household members. 

 

We don't lock things up around our home. We don't even lock our house, lol.

 

Children should be raised in a home where they feel trusted and respected. I don't think food should be locked up. Period. 

 

Unless it was a life threatening issue, such as locking up narcotics . . . or locking up dangerous chemicals when you have young kids in the house who don't know better than to not drink drain cleaner . . . or locking up weapons . . . those things should be locked up, of course. And, sure lock the bedroom door as needed so you don't inadvertently traumatize your kid or yourself when the kids barge in during Tea Time. But, other than those sorts of things, I'm not a believer in locks around the home. Period. 

 

Lock up chocolate chips? Uh, no. Never. Nope. Find another solution. Don't buy them at all, or buy more of them, or hide them in "dried sea weed" bag, or whatever . . . but, if you've gotta' lock them up, you've got much larger problems than a sugar high or a missing dessert.

 

How about find a solution that doesn't scream "Future Therapy Bills" or "Fast Track to Eating Disorder" or "Control Freak Mom"?

[StephanieZ]

Poorly executed snark attack

 

LOL, I figured it was snark, but I don't get the connection. 

[SKL]

Many people snack on chocolate chips, so I would consider them to be food. :)

 

I absolutely understand telling family members not to eat certain things because you need them for a meal or for baking -- it's the "locking it up" part that I disagree with.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have used the "horrifying" description, but I do disagree with the concept of putting food in a lockbox or in a locked cabinet, because it doesn't deal with the problem of Plain Jane's kids lying who is taking the food. In my mind, the lying is the bigger issue.

 

You mentioned that your child has never had any issue remotely like stealing food he isn't supposed to eat.  If you'd had such a child, you might have tried 100 ways to prevent his doing something that hurts him and everyone else, and locking food up might sound a lot less strange to you.  :)

 

As for me, I have never invested in a lockbox, but I have hidden stuff.  Generally my food sneaker has found it and figured out a way to reach it. Luckily I don't bake, so my only issue is that my kid has basically poisoned herself with sugar many times.  So, I don't find the lockbox idea so strange, though I didn't resort to that.

[SKL]

Uh, locking food up isn't horrifying to most of you?

 

I find it a horrifying concept to have food locked away from household members. 

 

We don't lock things up around our home. We don't even lock our house, lol.

 

Children should be raised in a home where they feel trusted and respected. I don't think food should be locked up. Period. 

 

Unless it was a life threatening issue, such as locking up narcotics . . . or locking up dangerous chemicals when you have young kids in the house who don't know better than to not drink drain cleaner . . . or locking up weapons . . . those things should be locked up, of course. And, sure lock the bedroom door as needed so you don't inadvertently traumatize your kid or yourself when the kids barge in during Tea Time. But, other than those sorts of things, I'm not a believer in locks around the home. Period. 

 

Lock up chocolate chips? Uh, no. Never. Nope. Find another solution. Don't buy them at all, or buy more of them, or hide them in "dried sea weed" bag, or whatever . . . but, if you've gotta' lock them up, you've got much larger problems than a sugar high or a missing dessert.

 

How about find a solution that doesn't scream "Future Therapy Bills" or "Fast Track to Eating Disorder" or "Control Freak Mom"?

 

This is a pretty surprising comment to me.  I do not agree that being unable to get at the chocolate chips is going to ruin a child's life.  There are many things we keep from our kids, as you mentioned.  Too much sugar is really not good for kids - and it affects some kids a lot more than others.  It's also addictive, more addictive to some than others.  For some, it can be equated to alcohol, which should be locked up if you have a child who won't keep his hands off of it.  Do you think it's horrifying to lock up alcohol?  Do you think child safety controls on the house internet are horrifying?  Sure we should trust our kids, but we should also be realistic about our kids' limitations.

 

[StephanieZ]

I think my horror at the idea of the lockbox likely boils down to my foundational principal that as parents, we are raising adults. We're not co-existing with wild animals, we're coaching little humans into becoming independent, capable, self-directing adults. So, in dealing with behavioral issues, we parents have a duty to find solutions that foster healthy development of self-control, moderation, respect for others, etc. Locking food up is contrary to these principles. I'd lock food away from dogs. I'd lock food away from raccoons. I even hang food up in trees while camping to keep it away from bears.  I don't lock food away from people, and *certainly* not away from *my people.*

 

The other part of this is just my gut belief that people shouldn't be hungry and they should be able to self-direct satisfying their food cravings/wishes/desires. When *anyone* is at my home, they are welcome to eat anything I've got here (and I make sure to have plenty), with the rare exceptions for certain things designated for a particular upcoming event/recipe/etc, and those things are respectfully communicated with others.

 

I realize that not everyone can afford to live with an "open pantry/open refrigerator" policy, and if it's truly an affordability issue, then that also becomes something that has to be communicated respectfully within the family. However, I don't believe that anyone ever starved for not having chocolate chips available, and I don't think that's the issue here, as the idea here was just to lock up the attractive sweets, not the entire kitchen. Either way is horrifying to me, as I wouldn't want anyone to live that way. 

[HomeAgain]

I think my horror at the idea of the lockbox likely boils down to my foundational principal that as parents, we are raising adults. We're not co-existing with wild animals, we're coaching little humans into becoming independent, capable, self-directing adults. So, in dealing with behavioral issues, we parents have a duty to find solutions that foster healthy development of self-control, moderation, respect for others, etc. Locking food up is contrary to these principles. I'd lock food away from dogs. I'd lock food away from raccoons. I even hang food up in trees while camping to keep it away from bears.  I don't lock food away from people, and *certainly* not away from *my people.*

 

The other part of this is just my gut belief that people shouldn't be hungry and they should be able to self-direct satisfying their food cravings/wishes/desires. When *anyone* is at my home, they are welcome to eat anything I've got here (and I make sure to have plenty), with the rare exceptions for certain things designated for a particular upcoming event/recipe/etc, and those things are respectfully communicated with others.

 

I realize that not everyone can afford to live with an "open pantry/open refrigerator" policy, and if it's truly an affordability issue, then that also becomes something that has to be communicated respectfully within the family. However, I don't believe that anyone ever starved for not having chocolate chips available, and I don't think that's the issue here, as the idea here was just to lock up the attractive sweets, not the entire kitchen. Either way is horrifying to me, as I wouldn't want anyone to live that way. 

 

I leashed my kid to keep him safe.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

I put up gates to keep my kid off the stairs.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

I keep medicine and medical equipment away from my kid.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

I keep my kids from watching film that have adult themes.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

I make my kids ride in the back seat until they are teens.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

I don't let my children have electronics in their bedrooms.  I wouldn't do that to an adult.

 

There is a lot we do at different stages to help our kids learn self-regulation and to keep them safe.  If you bothered to read my entire post, my kids (and the OP's!) do get treats, they do get the product of the baking, but they are not allowed unlimited access to every food that is out there.  Even by choosing not to buy it, it cuts into your idealistic "they should be able to self-direct satisfying their food cravings/wishes/desires".  My kids like ice cream.  I would not buy ice cream if they desired it at every meal.

 

Your use of the word "horrifying" is a gross exaggeration and did nothing to further the conversation.  You insulted people.  You equated us with monsters who abuse children because we don't give in to every whim.  You effectively created a situation in which your words became a weapon and not a tool of communication.  That is not a way to behave as an adult.

Edited February 18, 2017 by HomeAgain

[Catwoman]

In this particular instance, I firmly believe that Plain Jane needs to address the lying problem, rather than simply avoiding it by locking up the food. What will she do when the kids start lying about other things that aren't solved by simply locking up the food? I really believe the lying is the bigger issue here.

 

In all honesty, this thread makes no sense to me anyway, because on one hand, Jane said her kids were allowed to eat whatever they wanted, but then she seemed upset that they ate her chocolate chips (or whatever.) She said the kids knew they wouldn't get into trouble for eating the food, yet they are lying to her and denying they ate it. Why would they deny eating food that they were allowed to eat?

 

It's very confusing.

[StephanieZ]

This is a pretty surprising comment to me.  I do not agree that being unable to get at the chocolate chips is going to ruin a child's life.  There are many things we keep from our kids, as you mentioned.  Too much sugar is really not good for kids - and it affects some kids a lot more than others.  It's also addictive, more addictive to some than others.  For some, it can be equated to alcohol, which should be locked up if you have a child who won't keep his hands off of it.  Do you think it's horrifying to lock up alcohol?  Do you think child safety controls on the house internet are horrifying?  Sure we should trust our kids, but we should also be realistic about our kids' limitations.

 

 

I advocate restricting access to the internet because of the bad OTHER people accessible on the internet. 

 

I do not lock up alcohol or sweets in my house.

 

I do carefully control narcotics ,and if I had substantial narcotics in the house, I would get a lock box for them . . . because, to me, narcotics are nearly equivalent to weapons in how dangerous and how prone to theft/abuse they are . . . 

 

I think the alcohol is a good analogy, actually. One of my teens "stole" alcohol from our pantry/liquor cabinet several times. We discussed it. We even punished the child. In only partial jest, we did demand that the child to please avoid stealing another $50 bottle of wine from the stash in the basement, as we have cheaper wine in the kitchen . . . For a time, we kept much closer eye on alcohol. It was a short phase, and it came and went. IME, experimentation with alcohol isn't unusual or worrisome, and neither is it surprising for a 16 year old to want to drink some alcohol with pals. It's not good behavior, but it's not something I'd freak out about, either. If the behavior had continued or escalated or otherwise become more worrisome, I would have consulted a therapist to figure out what the core problems were and how to handle it better, and I'd likely have reduced the quantity of alcohol in the house to such an extent that I could easily count/track missing items . . . I would have come up with some ideas to figure out why the kid was doing that.

 

BUT, just locking up the alcohol would have done ZERO to prepare the child to make good choices and to have self-control. When the child leaves home (and even before then), alcohol is readily accessible in the big world. Kid needs to be prepared to self-control, not to rely on parental control. I am much, much more concerned that my 18 year old is ready to handle the freedoms of being an adult than whether my 6 year old is eating sweets after bedtime or my 16 year old snuck a hard cider on occasion. Those "sneaks" are just part of the process of learning self-control vs. abiding my parental controls/fear.

 

SO, in that line of thinking, practicing self-control on chocolate chips as a child helps that same child be ready to use self-control as an adult when making more crucial choices. 

 

And, I *do* think that it can be very damaging for a child to feel un-trusted. Locking things up is giving the kid a message that they aren't capable and/or trustworthy. They can't be trusted with chocolate chips??? Trust is crucial currency in relationships. I wouldn't want to give my kid the message of not being trusted . . . not over chocolate chips. 

 

And, FWIW, I am pretty confident that the research on food/diet/etc would show that parental control does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what parents want it to do. (I.e., more control == more obesity == more binging == more eating problems, etc.)

[SKL]

I think my horror at the idea of the lockbox likely boils down to my foundational principal that as parents, we are raising adults. We're not co-existing with wild animals, we're coaching little humans into becoming independent, capable, self-directing adults. So, in dealing with behavioral issues, we parents have a duty to find solutions that foster healthy development of self-control, moderation, respect for others, etc. Locking food up is contrary to these principles. I'd lock food away from dogs. I'd lock food away from raccoons. I even hang food up in trees while camping to keep it away from bears.  I don't lock food away from people, and *certainly* not away from *my people.*

 

The other part of this is just my gut belief that people shouldn't be hungry and they should be able to self-direct satisfying their food cravings/wishes/desires. When *anyone* is at my home, they are welcome to eat anything I've got here (and I make sure to have plenty), with the rare exceptions for certain things designated for a particular upcoming event/recipe/etc, and those things are respectfully communicated with others.

 

I realize that not everyone can afford to live with an "open pantry/open refrigerator" policy, and if it's truly an affordability issue, then that also becomes something that has to be communicated respectfully within the family. However, I don't believe that anyone ever starved for not having chocolate chips available, and I don't think that's the issue here, as the idea here was just to lock up the attractive sweets, not the entire kitchen. Either way is horrifying to me, as I wouldn't want anyone to live that way. 

 

Well, locking the unhealthy stuff up wasn't suggested as the go-to parenting method, but as a last resort.  You might assume that most people here would have first done their best to teach their kids civilized behavior using the loving methods espoused in all the parenting magazines.  Unfortunately not all kids respond the same way to the "I'm raising an adult" method.

 

I don't think the issue is so much affordability as stopping the one child with impulse control from preventing the whole family from living a normal life.  The child will not stop eating the chips, which is harmful to said child's health; therefore the family cannot have chips around - and can't bake anything with chocolate chips.  The one child's problem rules the entire house.  That's OK, but putting a lock on the chocolate chips is not?

 

If you don't believe that too much sugar can be bad for a child to eat, we will have to agree to disagree on that.

[SKL]

In this particular instance, I firmly believe that Plain Jane needs to address the lying problem, rather than simply avoiding it by locking up the food. What will she do when the kids start lying about other things that aren't solved by simply locking up the food? I really believe the lying is the bigger issue here.

 

In all honesty, this thread makes no sense to me anyway, because on one hand, Jane said her kids were allowed to eat whatever they wanted, but then she seemed upset that they ate her chocolate chips (or whatever.) She said the kids knew they wouldn't get into trouble for eating the food, yet they are lying to her and denying they ate it. Why would they deny eating food that they were allowed to eat?

 

It's very confusing.

 

Because some children do things that don't make any sense.

 

Just take my word on that one.  :)

[SKL]

 

BUT, just locking up the alcohol would have done ZERO to prepare the child to make good choices and to have self-control. When the child leaves home (and even before then), alcohol is readily accessible in the big world. Kid needs to be prepared to self-control, not to rely on parental control. I am much, much more concerned that my 18 year old is ready to handle the freedoms of being an adult than whether my 6 year old is eating sweets after bedtime or my 16 year old snuck a hard cider on occasion. Those "sneaks" are just part of the process of learning self-control vs. abiding my parental controls/fear.

 

SO, in that line of thinking, practicing self-control on chocolate chips as a child helps that same child be ready to use self-control as an adult when making more crucial choices. 

 

And, I *do* think that it can be very damaging for a child to feel un-trusted. Locking things up is giving the kid a message that they aren't capable and/or trustworthy. They can't be trusted with chocolate chips??? Trust is crucial currency in relationships. I wouldn't want to give my kid the message of not being trusted . . . not over chocolate chips. 

 

And, FWIW, I am pretty confident that the research on food/diet/etc would show that parental control does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what parents want it to do. (I.e., more control == more obesity == more binging == more eating problems, etc.)

 

Well I did not know we were talking about a nearly-grown person; I was talking about young elementary-aged kids myself.  I think there is a difference.

 

As for the idea that the child should feel trusted not to take the chips - well I'm sure that tack has been tried - and it failed repeatedly.  That particular child cannot in fact be trusted to stop gorging on the chips.  Why pretend otherwise?  Children are not stupid.  Lying to kids by saying "I trust you" when you actually don't does not build trust in the relationship.

 

As for your research, the fact is that every child is a unique individual.  Statistical research works for the population in general, but it fails when you're talking about an individual child who has proven an exception to the rule.

 

Obviously your kids don't have this problem, which is great.  Nobody is suggesting that *you* lock up your stuff.

[Katy]

In my family DH would help all of the kids take individual servings of chocolate chips and they would be gone.  If I want them not to be eaten, hiding them or locking them up is the only option other than not buying them until the day I intend to use them.

 

I choose to delay purchasing.  I have no ethical problems with locks.

 

I do have ethical problems with "should"-ing all over other parents.  Parenting seems so intuitive until you get a child who's nothing like you, or who has some sort of medical or psychological compulsion and will eat all of the chocolate until they are ill. We don't keep liquor out in front of alcoholics, and I wouldn't keep unrestricted access to sweets out in front of children who have impulse control issues.

[StephanieZ]

 

Obviously your kids don't have this problem, which is great.  Nobody is suggesting that *you* lock up your stuff.

 

Actually, if you read my first post on this thread, I readily admit that ALL THREE of my kids did this. I suggest that it's normal behavior. My solution is to buy larger bags of chocolate chips. 

 

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. Raise your own however you want. Give whatever parenting advice you want. *My* advice has already been offered, as has my opinion on the wisdom of locking up food. Folks should and will accept whatever advice that makes sense to them and discard the rest. That's sort of the point.

 

So, I think I'm done debating it with you. You are clearly in the mood for a fight. Maybe you could go to a kick-boxing class instead of trolling my posts. 

 

BTW, there is a really cool feature called "Block" that will make all my posts disappear from your view. It'd be super cool of you to block me, so my offensive posts no longer appear in your view of the boards. If you need help figuring out how to do it, I'm sure someone here can help you. 

[SKL]

Actually, if you read my first post on this thread, I readily admit that ALL THREE of my kids did this. I suggest that it's normal behavior. My solution is to buy larger bags of chocolate chips. 

 

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. Raise your own however you want. Give whatever parenting advice you want. *My* advice has already been offered, as has my opinion on the wisdom of locking up food. Folks should and will accept whatever advice that makes sense to them and discard the rest. That's sort of the point.

 

So, I think I'm done debating it with you. You are clearly in the mood for a fight. Maybe you could go to a kick-boxing class instead of trolling my posts. 

 

BTW, there is a really cool feature called "Block" that will make all my posts disappear from your view. It'd be super cool of you to block me, so my offensive posts no longer appear in your view of the boards. If you need help figuring out how to do it, I'm sure someone here can help you. 

 

It is normal behavior up to a point.  Beyond a point it is not.

 

I also think it is normal to state a point (or points) of disagreement rather than blocking everyone I disagree with.  But you are free to block me if it makes you feel better.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

You guys must be bored.

 

:laugh:

 

 

[maize]

In this particular instance, I firmly believe that Plain Jane needs to address the lying problem, rather than simply avoiding it by locking up the food.

Meh.

 

Most kids lie; it's an intuitive way to try to preserve their relationship with a parent if they expect a parent to be displeased with the truth.

 

While I'm all in favor of teaching kids the positive value of honesty, I don't think making a big deal out of normal "parental disfavor avoidance" lies is helpful. Mostly in situations like this I try to avoid setting kids up to lie. So, if I discover chocolate chips have been eaten, I don't yell "who ate the chocolate chips?!" rather, I might make a general announcement along the lines of "hey guys, I was going to make cookies and found the chocolate chip bag empty. Please ask me before eating chocolate chips in the future."

 

If the problem persisted and was bothering me I'd probably hide the chocolate chips.

Edited February 19, 2017 by maize

[OneStepAtATime]

FWIW, sometimes kids have very poor impulse control.  There can be many underlying reasons.  Logic doesn't always play into this.  Trust doesn't always play into this.

 

I had poor impulse control for sweets.  Why?  I was hypoglycemic.  My mom ended up locking up some of the food I could not have and I am grateful.  She tried talking with me, first, and explaining what a bad idea it was for me to binge eat sweets.  She set limits and I understood logically why I shouldn't eat these things anymore.  I really did understand.  The impulse to eat the sweets was overwhelming, though, and not based on logic at all.  I still stole sweets.  I was like an addict.  And the sneaking was damaging my self-esteem.  I felt like a failure every time I did it but in the moment I couldn't stop.  Mom reduced the number of baking goods and other sweets we had around but that was hard on the rest of my family so she didn't eliminate them entirely.  Locking up the small amount of stuff she still had around that I wasn't supposed to have, explaining why, and making sure she did it in a way that didn't make me feel like a bad person very much helped me stay healthy and learn some self control over time as I got older and adjusted to the changes.  I NEEDED the outside support/physical limits.  I was given unlimited access to foods I COULD eat.  Just not to the stuff I couldn't.

 

(And in case anyone cares, I am a pretty normal adult.  Locking up the sweets didn't cause me lasting psychological damage.)

 

Does this mean I think the OP should lock up the things that keep going missing?  Actually, I have no idea if that is necessary for her particular situation.  Maybe it would be a good idea and maybe it wouldn't.  I do think it might help to have a family discussion, explain why some things shouldn't be eaten, and see if maybe creating a snack shelf of things the kids are absolutely allowed to eat might cut down on the food going missing.  Have a few chocolate chips in baggies with the kids' names on them.  Tell them they each get one of those baggies and when the chips are gone, they can't have any more without asking.  It might help.

[EMS83]

^^ I like OneStepAtATime's post

 

 

 

I have no idea what OP should do.  It seems only sweets that are typically meant for everyone or baking are disappearing?  So for me personally in my home, my concerns would be: trust, health, and selfishness.  I would take this situation very seriously, but not raise a huge fuss about it.  That doesn't mean OP has to, though.  I'm sorry it's even an issue for you.   :grouphug:

 

This is off the top of my head, not having had to deal with anything like this, but knowing my kids would absolutely eat sweets over real food or a whole box of oreos if I let them....I would be most concerned about the sneaking, both for my trust in them and their trust in me.  Have I done anything to make them feel like they have to hide this?  Are they engaging in any other sneaky behaviors?  If no on both counts, it would seem the sneaking is purely to keep the privilege of eating ALL of the Christmas candy or ALL of the chocolate chips themselves (assuming it's one person and not the whole lot).  If I had a confessed/convicted culprit, I'd charge damages.  No fanfare or fuss, just tally the cost "eaten" and they either fork over their allowance or work it off with chores.  If possible, I'd likely stop allowing the target food (assuming it's unhealthy) for a while, until I felt we'd worked out the internal issues.  But otherwise it'd be a lot of talking about personal decisions and whatever is motivating them.  Without knowing who or how many are doing this, though, it makes it really tough to even deal with in any way whatsoever.  And I'm not saying you should do this, or that I absolutely would do it exactly like this in my house; this is jut my off-the-cuff musing based on how I generally handle things here.  /shrug

 

 

[Lawana]

 

Compulsions are not always in our direct control. Whether or not this is the case for OP, I have no idea. As a pp stated, sometimes removing the temptation is a kindness. Sometimes it is not. These kinds of issues can be quite complex and specific to the individual. While it is healthy and helpful to offer a variety of opinions, dogmatic assertions that one way is the only true answer, or the absolute worst thing possible, guaranteed to screw up your kid for life, are generally not going to help at all.

[Peaceful Isle]

I'm worse than my kids at eating all the yummy stuff! I grew up in a home where food was very strictly rationed and not a lot of it. ( not suggesting you do this OP , just telling my story :) so I make sure my kids have yummy sweets, snacks, and fun food. I have never had an issue with them sneaking food. Sure, maybe I should be healthier and limit them, but none of them are overweight, and they are all pretty active.

[Terabith]

This is mid February. I would not expect there to be any Christmas, let alone Halloween, candy. I can see how it would be disappointing to think that there was some only to find out otherwise. But I can't consider that gobbling. Depending on how long the chocolate chips had been in there, I could imagine a situation where everyone had a few and so nobody would be lying or admit to eating all of them.

 

I may not be interpreting this correctly, but it might be an issue of expectations rather than anyone gobbling all the sweets. Or, it may be. Just raising a different scenario.

[Zinnia]

OneStepAtATime, thanks for that post.  That gives me insight to my food sneaker.  He is such a bear in the 15 minutes before a meal that we have begun to suspect hypoglycemia.  And like you, he can tell us that sneaking is a bad idea, seems to feel remorse about it, and yet, we still will find candy wrappers or whatever lying around.  It has introduced a level of shame over this behavior that I hate. He seems so disappointed in himself, yet genuinely unable to stop.  We've just not had the most offensive things (candy, chocolate chips, marshmallows) in the house since the new year, but I've been torn about going that route.  It makes me feel better to hear that approach seen as a kindness to the kid with an issue. So thanks for that.