S/O Spanking?

[SKL]

41 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Yeah, not over bones or internal organs.  The goal of spanking is to cause pain, not damage of any sort.  One could argue whether causing pain is appropriate, of course, but that’s an aside from why bottoms are used.

I would say to cause discomfort.  I don't believe pain is the goal, but I guess some people do.

But yeah - because historically we were talking about actual beating, but butt or back of the thighs was the safest location.

[maize]

51 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

It's definitely the place least likely to cause permanent harm, and that is because of padding.

Arms bruise extremely easily, I often have bruises on my arms with no idea how I got them.

ETA I meant to quote the person who asked why not arms.

Edited October 2, 2019 by maize

[Katy]

8 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

 

How the heck hard are people spanking kids that they have to worry about internal organs or permanent harm? 

 

I hope that these days not very hard, but when I was a kid a lot of parents (rural Florida, the Southern culture part not the touristy part) used switches or belts or paddles, and combined with anger that could cause death really quickly.  Obviously THAT is abusive, but the question was why the butt... because in the past it wasn't abuse, and in the past is where the reasoning came from.

There's a guy who was recently on trial in Milwaukee for killing his son by punching him for eating his father's day cheesecake. One punch in the stomach killed the 5 year old.  The guy's name is Travis Stackhouse, if you want to look the case up.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

If this becomes a law, I hope you realize how it's going to be enforced - just like every other law.  It will disproportionately hurt poor families and children.  The people with money - who are already statistically less likely to spank - probably in part because they have fewer kids and can afford more help with their kids - will get off thanks to their access to legal options.  Married parents will be able to leave their kid with the other spouse if they get carted off over a spanking violation.  But poor parents - especially single moms - will bear the brunt of this law.  And if you think separating children from their parents over something that is NOT ABUSE is somehow a good idea, please study up on the trauma effects of child custody disruptions.

It makes no sense to say we should have a law but not enforce it.  If there is a law, it will be enforced, and the poor kids in broken families will be the ones punished.

If you want to convince people not to spank, there are other ways to do it.  You can see lots of difference over the decades.  Let that be enough.

It is already illegal to abuse children. 

It’s a law in some places in the world. 🤷🏻‍♀️

There are tons of laws that are only enforced if XYZ happens. For example, when it became law in Maryland to wear seatbelts (all drivers and all passengers in a car), it was enforceable only if the police had other reason to pull you over. The police didn’t drive around, pulling people over randomly to see if they were belted. But if you were already driving erratically, and you were pulled over and now it is observed you aren’t buckled, either, you can be fined for the seatbelt in addition to whatever else you might have done wrong. 

In my vision of the future, there would be no spanking inspectors, trying to find out who is breaking the law by swatting a belligerent toddler butt once in a blue moon, BUT if fitness of parenting came into question and the parents were investigated, they could get in trouble for spanking, too, if it’s part of an overall picture of poor parenting. 

As I said in the beginning of this thread, I would 100% support either govt or health care companies giving classes and materials to people (of any income level, any marital status) to help them learn child management techniques that don’t depend on spanking. 

[Kassia]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

That was literally the last time any fuss was made over a car seat (or any other seat) in my family.  There were no tears, no screams, no fears, no therapy sessions.  No mama headaches or car accidents or inability to go where we needed to go.  

 

Just because it worked doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, though.  

 

2 hours ago, SKL said:

 It will disproportionately hurt poor families and children.  The people with money - who are already statistically less likely to spank - probably in part because they have fewer kids and can afford more help with their kids - will get off thanks to their access to legal options.  Married parents will be able to leave their kid with the other spouse if they get carted off over a spanking violation.  But poor parents - especially single moms - will bear the brunt of this law.  If there is a law, it will be enforced, and the poor kids in broken families will be the ones punished.

 

I agree with this.

 

36 minutes ago, Quill said:

 

As I said in the beginning of this thread, I would 100% support either govt or health care companies giving classes and materials to people (of any income level, any marital status) to help them learn child management techniques that don’t depend on spanking. 

 

Me too.  It's so important.  

[LucyStoner]

A lot of laws are only enforced if something happens.  Not everything that is illegal comes with a criminal punishment.  

I do agree with what people on both sides have said- that it’s impractical to make light swats and spanking illegal.  I also agree that any law passed with any real enforcement teeth would be inequitably enforced and applied.  I also think that perfectly good parents make mistakes and need opportunities for positive change and support rather than criminal consequences in all but extreme abuse cases.  All of these are very good reasons why I disagree with the practice of spanking but don’t know that there’s much to come from banning it.  

ETA- this goes to spanking by parents.  I absolutely think it should be illegal in school even with parental permission.  If my child could be paddled at school, my child simply would not be attending school.  Woe-betide any one who assaults my kids.  

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It’s a law in some places in the world. 🤷🏻‍♀️

There are tons of laws that are only enforced if XYZ happens. For example, when it became law in Maryland to wear seatbelts (all drivers and all passengers in a car), it was enforceable only if the police had other reason to pull you over. The police didn’t drive around, pulling people over randomly to see if they were belted. But if you were already driving erratically, and you were pulled over and now it is observed you aren’t buckled, either, you can be fined for the seatbelt in addition to whatever else you might have done wrong. 

In my vision of the future, there would be no spanking inspectors, trying to find out who is breaking the law by swatting a belligerent toddler butt once in a blue moon, BUT if fitness of parenting came into question and the parents were investigated, they could get in trouble for spanking, too, if it’s part of an overall picture of poor parenting. 

As I said in the beginning of this thread, I would 100% support either govt or health care companies giving classes and materials to people (of any income level, any marital status) to help them learn child management techniques that don’t depend on spanking. 

It is important to think about though, with seatbelt laws in particular, in some states they are used in order to pull people over on that pretense alone, not as an additional charge if they see something else. IOW, it's the opposite of what you're saying about MD -- LEO pulls you over for a seatbelt violation and then uses that to "find" other problems. But white ladies in luxury SUVs aren't the ones getting pulled over in these places for suspected seatbelt violations, and like SKL said, that isn't the demographic of people who are going to get in trouble for spanking if it's banned in a state.

Also, I'm with SKL on general principle -- if you don't want it enforced, or only want it enforced selectively in certain situations, don't pass a law. If you don't want people to be busted for spanking, you can't make spanking illegal and then say, well, only if they are doing something else wrong or only if it's egregious according to my personal standards. That's not how the law should work, or really does work out in practicality. And if spanking is child abuse and should be banned, then it is child abuse even if it is once in a blue moon on a belligerent toddler's diapered butt.

From what I have seen (which is limited reading), in places where it is outlawed, they have room for parents to defend themselves if they have spanked but used "reasonable methods" or the punishment was "transitory" or some such. But again, this law has to be interpreted by individuals and that is not always great for people who fall in the margins of society in the first place. If you're well educated and have a nice looking family, then things will probably be fine. The lady who got some insane jail sentence for sending her kids to a better school district illegally comes to mind. The people who wanted that law in place probably didn't want that to happen, or at least I hope not. But it is the law, and the maximum sentence, as it was passed, right? So what do you do after the fact of it being passed and applied to her and her kid?

[Pen]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

If this becomes a law, I hope you realize how it's going to be enforced - just like every other law.  It will disproportionately hurt poor families and children.  The people with money - who are already statistically less likely to spank - probably in part because they have fewer kids and can afford more help with their kids - will get off thanks to their access to legal options.  Married parents will be able to leave their kid with the other spouse if they get carted off over a spanking violation.  But poor parents - especially single moms - will bear the brunt of this law.  And if you think separating children from their parents over something that is NOT ABUSE is somehow a good idea, please study up on the trauma effects of child custody disruptions.

It makes no sense to say we should have a law but not enforce it.  If there is a law, it will be enforced, and the poor kids in broken families will be the ones punished.

If you want to convince people not to spank, there are other ways to do it.  You can see lots of difference over the decades.  Let that be enough.

It is already illegal to abuse children. 

 

In the op link about Sweden it seemed that spanking (or similar) resulted in education on positive parenting for the parent, rather than the government hitting the parent with a punishment.   It sounded like a good way to respond, and I guess a generation in that it has made a difference. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

It is important to think about though, with seatbelt laws in particular, in some states they are used in order to pull people over on that pretense alone, not as an additional charge if they see something else. IOW, it's the opposite of what you're saying about MD -- LEO pulls you over for a seatbelt violation and then uses that to "find" other problems. But white ladies in luxury SUVs aren't the ones getting pulled over in these places for suspected seatbelt violations, and like SKL said, that isn't the demographic of people who are going to get in trouble for spanking if it's banned in a state.

Also, I'm with SKL on general principle -- if you don't want it enforced, or only want it enforced selectively in certain situations, don't pass a law. If you don't want people to be busted for spanking, you can't make spanking illegal and then say, well, only if they are doing something else wrong or only if it's egregious according to my personal standards. That's not how the law should work, or really does work out in practicality. And if spanking is child abuse and should be banned, then it is child abuse even if it is once in a blue moon on a belligerent toddler's diapered butt.

From what I have seen (which is limited reading), in places where it is outlawed, they have room for parents to defend themselves if they have spanked but used "reasonable methods" or the punishment was "transitory" or some such. But again, this law has to be interpreted by individuals and that is not always great for people who fall in the margins of society in the first place. If you're well educated and have a nice looking family, then things will probably be fine. The lady who got some insane jail sentence for sending her kids to a better school district illegally comes to mind. The people who wanted that law in place probably didn't want that to happen, or at least I hope not. But it is the law, and the maximum sentence, as it was passed, right? So what do you do after the fact of it being passed and applied to her and her kid?

MANY laws are like this. You aren’t instantly thrown in jail for any breach of laws. If you give your 15yo a champagne flute to toast at your home New Year’s celebration, you aren’t in grave danger of being charged with providing alcohol to a minor. But if you hold ragers every weekend and provide alcohol to minors and someone reports it, you could face serious charges. 

Let’s say all spanking of children was illegal starting tommorow. Is the mom who once in a while gives a swat on a clothed behind very likely to be charged? No. But if there are other reasons someone is concerned about the parenting and discipline going on there and they get investigated, charged and have to go to a parenting skills class, I would like that outcome. If some mom in my homeschool co-op did like the mom on the Sonlight boards and told me she spanks the kids every night just in case they sinned, I would report it (if spanking were illegal). 

I do agree with you, though, that non-white and/or non-affluent parents are judged more harshly. It was one thing that really bugged me with the case of the little Maddie McCann girl who was abducted from the hotel room while the parents ate dinner. I think the public perception was very compassionate towards the parents because they were white, affluent folks on holiday. I have often said imagine how the parent would be judged if it was a lower-income single parent whose kid was snatched at the McDonalds playland while mom went around the corner for a smoke.

[historically accurate]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

It is important to think about though, with seatbelt laws in particular, in some states they are used in order to pull people over on that pretense alone, not as an additional charge if they see something else. IOW, it's the opposite of what you're saying about MD -- LEO pulls you over for a seatbelt violation and then uses that to "find" other problems. But white ladies in luxury SUVs aren't the ones getting pulled over in these places for suspected seatbelt violations, and like SKL said, that isn't the demographic of people who are going to get in trouble for spanking if it's banned in a state.

Also, I'm with SKL on general principle -- if you don't want it enforced, or only want it enforced selectively in certain situations, don't pass a law. If you don't want people to be busted for spanking, you can't make spanking illegal and then say, well, only if they are doing something else wrong or only if it's egregious according to my personal standards. That's not how the law should work, or really does work out in practicality. And if spanking is child abuse and should be banned, then it is child abuse even if it is once in a blue moon on a belligerent toddler's diapered butt.

From what I have seen (which is limited reading), in places where it is outlawed, they have room for parents to defend themselves if they have spanked but used "reasonable methods" or the punishment was "transitory" or some such. But again, this law has to be interpreted by individuals and that is not always great for people who fall in the margins of society in the first place. If you're well educated and have a nice looking family, then things will probably be fine. The lady who got some insane jail sentence for sending her kids to a better school district illegally comes to mind. The people who wanted that law in place probably didn't want that to happen, or at least I hope not. But it is the law, and the maximum sentence, as it was passed, right? So what do you do after the fact of it being passed and applied to her and her kid?

Actually, Illinois has a law regarding children that is enforced exactly how I expect a spanking ban would be. In IL, children up to age 14 cannot legally be left home alone "for an unreasonable time". Unreasonable time is not defined, which means that pretty much it is not an issue unless something happens. So if my child is left home alone at age 12 and burns down the shed, they can come after me for leaving her alone. If she sits on the couch and binge watches Netflix while I am out shopping and I come home and she is safe, 99% of the time no one is going to come after me. https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/can-i-leave-my-children-alone-home-after-school

 

[SKL]

12 minutes ago, Quill said:

 

Let’s say all spanking of children was illegal starting tommorow. Is the mom who once in a while gives a swat on a clothed behind very likely to be charged? No. But if there are other reasons someone is concerned about the parenting and discipline going on there and they get investigated, charged and have to go to a parenting skills class, I would like that outcome. 

 

You mean like in a divorce case where the dad decided to use that crime as evidence against the mom?  Or an educational neglect case where they decided to use this crime against a homeschooler?  How about the Meitivs whose kids happen to look young to walk down the street without an adult?  Or a situation where a family is poor and the kid is lacking something for that reason.  Perhaps someone who is a vaccine delayer?  Or has a dog that barks and happens to be a pit bull?  Or maybe the mom who is ill and didn't get the garbage out and the neighbors complained.

Also keep in mind that once that kind of thing is on a parent's record, she can never get a job that involves working with kids, can never adopt or foster, and probably can't even volunteer in her kid's classroom or scout meeting.

Edited October 2, 2019 by SKL

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

You mean like in a divorce case where the dad decided to use that crime as evidence against the mom?  Or an educational neglect case where they decided to use this crime against a homeschooler?  How about the Meitivs whose kids happen to look young to walk down the street without an adult?  Or a situation where a family is poor and the kid is lacking something for that reason.  Perhaps someone who is a vaccine delayer?  Or has a dog that barks and happens to be a pit bull?  Or maybe the mom who is ill and didn't get the garbage out and the neighbors complained.

But part of me says, then if you're worried about those things, don't hit your kids.

I do have mixed feelings about a law. But I'd be strongly for a government guideline. If CPS gets involved in your family for any reason (even something that turns out to be nothing) and you're found to use spanking, maybe it should be automatic mandated parent education. If there's a divorce, then the parent who doesn't hit their kids does seem like the better parent to me, assuming a judge could actually know or that the process was fair (but divorce being a mess isn't an argument for not making better guidelines). Or maybe it just needs to be public, government sponsored education campaigns.

I can't believe we're having any sort of debate about whether or not it's "good" or "okay" for kids. Like, yeah, some kids come out just fine. And other don't and we're pretty darn sure at this point that spanking is part of the cause.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Farrar said:

But part of me says, then if you're worried about those things, don't hit your kids.

I do have mixed feelings about a law. But I'd be strongly for a government guideline. If CPS gets involved in your family for any reason (even something that turns out to be nothing) and you're found to use spanking, maybe it should be automatic mandated parent education. If there's a divorce, then the parent who doesn't hit their kids does seem like the better parent to me, assuming a judge could actually know or that the process was fair (but divorce being a mess isn't an argument for not making better guidelines). Or maybe it just needs to be public, government sponsored education campaigns.

I can't believe we're having any sort of debate about whether or not it's "good" or "okay" for kids. Like, yeah, some kids come out just fine. And other don't and we're pretty darn sure at this point that spanking is part of the cause.

Whoa - what about the fact that usually the parent who spanks is the parent who spends the most time with the kid?  Are you kidding me?

Government guideline - fine.  CPS / mandated education - fine.  I can still have my own opinion even if I am forced to listen to someone else's.  Taking my kids over a difference in parenting philosophy that nobody can seriously call abuse - not in any way fine.

[Farrar]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Whoa - what about the fact that usually the parent who spanks is the parent who spends the most time with the kid?  Are you kidding me?

Government guideline - fine.  CPS / mandated education - fine.  I can still have my own opinion even if I am forced to listen to someone else's.  Taking my kids over a difference in parenting philosophy that nobody can seriously call abuse - not in any way fine.

Yes. If it's the case that both parents approve of the use of spanking, I don't think mom should lose custody if she's the one carrying it more often. But if all things are equal, the parent who thinks spanking is okay and spanks vs. the parent who doesn't. I absolutely think the person who doesn't think hitting the kids is okay and has not hit them should get primary custody. Now, usually things are not all equal and we all know the courts are unfair, so I'm not sure about implementation. But divorce courts already consider how parents discipline and parent. A "spanking is a mark against you as a parent" guideline doesn't seem crazy to me in the least. In fact, this may already be the case in some jurisdictions. I wouldn't be surprised.

ETA: This is a practice that has been shown repeatedly to not be good for kids. Some kids come out of it fine, but others do not and a link has been shown in many studies. It's not a parenting choice the way that other things are. It's a belief that it's okay for a grown person to purposefully inflict pain on a smaller, less powerful person. It's a cultural tradition, it's still common in some circles, blah blah blah, so I don't  think the government should be arresting anyone over it or going around taking kids. I think they should be educating parents to protect kids. But in a case where two people are arguing over kids and the government is called upon to decide which one will get them? I absolutely think they should take a position.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Farrar

[SKL]

Sigh.  The fact that this is something allowed only between parents & kids is a poor but popular argument.  The same is true of so many other things that are commonly done by parents to kids.  Stripping them naked, touching their privates (during diapering / bathing), restraining them, imprisoning them, drugging them, denying them the ability to communicate with the outside world, sharing their private information, making all sorts of highly important decisions for them without their input.  Why is any of that legal?  Some of these are just as traumatizing to many kids - or more so - than spanking.

Anyhoo.  Don't spank if you don't like spanking.  Personally I don't like some things that are popular here either.  I actually think some of them are bad for most kids.  But that is my opinion since it doesn't rise to the level of abuse.  I would be laughed out of here pretty fast if I suggested certain popular things I don't agree with should be illegal.

I really wonder what it will be like for my kids when/if they become parents.  I mean it was already pretty annoying for me to have to hold my kids back in some ways because of popular opinion, "concerned citizens," or stupid laws.  We're moving toward fewer choices, more conformity, "one size fits all," and we all know that is bad for kids, who are all different.

[Farrar]

41 minutes ago, SKL said:

Anyhoo.  Don't spank if you don't like spanking. 

Anyhoo. Don't assault people if you don't like assault.

Because that's how this sounds to me.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

You mean like in a divorce case where the dad decided to use that crime as evidence against the mom?  Or an educational neglect case where they decided to use this crime against a homeschooler?  How about the Meitivs whose kids happen to look young to walk down the street without an adult?  Or a situation where a family is poor and the kid is lacking something for that reason.  Perhaps someone who is a vaccine delayer?  Or has a dog that barks and happens to be a pit bull?  Or maybe the mom who is ill and didn't get the garbage out and the neighbors complained.

Also keep in mind that once that kind of thing is on a parent's record, she can never get a job that involves working with kids, can never adopt or foster, and probably can't even volunteer in her kid's classroom or scout meeting.

You’re going to Ten on something that doesn’t need to be a Ten. It’s, like, a two-point-five. Don’t we have such a thing as legislation and judges that can parse out the difference, if need be? Can’t it usually be determined with relative accuracy that this parent really IS not doing a great job in the parenting department, while this parent had a bad moment? Does this always work perfectly? No; somethings weird things overstep and someone goes bananas because a ten-year-old walked two blocks to grandma’s house alone. But we don’t get rid of laws or fail to make them because wrong accusations happen sometimes. 

If you don’t hit your kids, you shouldn’t have much to worry about AFA exaggerated claims. 

[Farrar]

All the things that we do for our kids that we can't do to randos on the street are things we are empowered to do for their protection and nurture. And if we abuse that power, the interests of the state in the name of the child can take them away. Hitting a child is never for their protection or nurture. Never.

The reality is that people make mistakes, including parents. I don't think anyone should take a child away over a spanking or even dozens of spankings, especially assuming they were really spankings and not beatings. Just like we also know constantly yelling at your kids is also psychologically damaging and I think we need to educate and guide about that too and not take kids away over it or criminalize it. I think the key is education. The needle has moved on this big time and it's going to keep moving.

We still have plenty of freedom as parents. Our educational choices are more diverse than ever. Parenting styles continue to evolve. Everyone can make their own rules about chores, curfews, screens, dinner, sleepovers, clothes, playing in the yard, and so forth. Everyone can decide how to deal with kids who violate those boundaries in your house. Sometimes for young children or children who are a danger to themselves or others, that includes physical restraint. But intentional violence should not be a part of any parent's toolbox. And I don't feel any qualms saying that.

[Farrar]

I used to be against changing laws for things like this. And just generally. Get culture to change. There's no need to involve the government.

But when things are not good for a group or a cause, this is what changes behavior. As long as it can be done with minimal cost - both monetary and to people's rights in general - then I now favor changing it for the most part. Every state has a carseat law. It should be with that motivation in mind. Keeping kids safe. Some of us were annoyed when the laws changed like 15 or so years ago. I have to leave my toddler rear facing for how long!? But then we got over it. When the law hadn't changed, people ignored the guidelines. When the law changed, there wasn't a spate of parents ticketed. They warned a few people. They ran ads. Fire police stations held carseat trade ins and education days and free checks. It didn't hurt anyone's right to leave their kid in an unsafe carseat because that's not a right any more than hitting a child. It didn't stomp out our diverse parenting approaches somehow. It just protected kids.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Farrar

[wendyroo]

I have not read through this thread...I just couldn't make myself because this is such an uncomfortable topic for me.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think might contribute to Americans spanking their children is the lack of extended family/community/governmental support for parents...especially those dealing with children with mental health and neurodevelopmental challenges.

DH and I entered our parenting journey opposed to spanking.  With three of our children we have never even been tempted to spank.  With one of our children, spanking has become a regular, necessary form of behavior management.  When you have an 8 year old repeatedly kicking holes in his bedroom walls and pulling out the live electrical wires, you really can't wait for natural consequences to teach the lesson.  The psychologist doesn't know what to do; the psychiatrist doesn't know what to do; the police don't know what to do.  Upon his release, the inpatient mental health facility assured me that if he did electrocute himself that we would not be held liable because we had done everything we could.  Great.

My son does not respond to reasoning - he just doesn't or can't care.  He doesn't care about his hypothetical safety, he doesn't care about his family or home, he doesn't care about legal ramifications, he doesn't care about hospitalizations.  But he does care about avoiding spankings.  It is an immediate negative consequence that we use to curtail the very most dangerous behaviors.  Maybe spanking will have a lasting negative impact on his mental health (though his mental state started out SOOOOOOO unhealthy that it seems a bit of a moot point), but we have had to prioritize keeping him alive over fretting about that...clearly being dead has a more lasting negative impact. 

Throughout our years as parents, we have been screaming and begging and pleading for help with our mentally ill children.  And really, society has given us diddly squat.  So we spank NOT because we are uneducated (we have read many parenting books and gone to many classes and talked to many experts and therapists), and NOT because we are lazy, but rather because we love this child with all our hearts and this is the only thing we have found that keeps him reasonably safe.  (Tongue-in-cheek, the psychiatrist actually agreed with me that a shock collar would probably be even more effective in that it would deliver immediate negative feedback to a brain that really struggles to grasp cause and effect.)  And until the government provides sufficient, affordable mental health care to take over some of the burden of caring for this type of child, then I do not think they have the right to tell me I cannot spank him.

OTOH, if they did enact a law, and we did continue to spank him, and they therefore did take him into protective custody, then maybe that would be the catalyst to get him the intensive, inpatient care that he needs.  So I guess that would be the upside.

Wendy

[catz]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

 

I can't believe we're having any sort of debate about whether or not it's "good" or "okay" for kids. Like, yeah, some kids come out just fine. And other don't and we're pretty darn sure at this point that spanking is part of the cause.

I find the argument that kids are fine ridiculous.  Unless you have an emotionally healthy productive adult that has a warm relationship with their parents  for a number of years can you really declare your child is "fine".  I did therapy as an adult and did a lot of processing of incidents that happened when I was a child.  It really isn't always "fine".  The people who rant about spanking being fine on my social media feed tend to be some of the least emotionally healthy adults I know.  

[Farrar]

9 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I find the argument that kids are fine ridiculous.  Unless you have an emotionally healthy productive adult that has a warm relationship with their parents  for a number of years can you really declare your child is "fine".  I did therapy as an adult and did a lot of processing of incidents that happened when I was a child.  It really isn't always "fine".  The people who rant about spanking being fine on my social media feed tend to be some of the least emotionally healthy adults I know.  

I do agree with this. I guess I just mean that by basic outside measures and self-reporting, I acknowledge that there are people who experienced spanking as a common punishment who will be "fine" to anyone looking to prove that such a group exists. That doesn't mean it's okay anymore than lots of other dangerous behaviors are okay.

It's also that it's easy not to do. Like, there's more effective discipline. Even for the mythical out of control child who wants to run in front of cars all the time.

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, wendyroo said:

I have not read through this thread...I just couldn't make myself because this is such an uncomfortable topic for me.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think might contribute to Americans spanking their children is the lack of extended family/community/governmental support for parents...especially those dealing with children with mental health and neurodevelopmental challenges.

DH and I entered our parenting journey opposed to spanking.  With three of our children we have never even been tempted to spank.  With one of our children, spanking has become a regular, necessary form of behavior management.  When you have an 8 year old repeatedly kicking holes in his bedroom walls and pulling out the live electrical wires, you really can't wait for natural consequences to teach the lesson.  The psychologist doesn't know what to do; the psychiatrist doesn't know what to do; the police don't know what to do.  Upon his release, the inpatient mental health facility assured me that if he did electrocute himself that we would not be held liable because we had done everything we could.  Great.

My son does not respond to reasoning - he just doesn't or can't care.  He doesn't care about his hypothetical safety, he doesn't care about his family or home, he doesn't care about legal ramifications, he doesn't care about hospitalizations.  But he does care about avoiding spankings.  It is an immediate negative consequence that we use to curtail the very most dangerous behaviors.  Maybe spanking will have a lasting negative impact on his mental health (though his mental state started out SOOOOOOO unhealthy that it seems a bit of a moot point), but we have had to prioritize keeping him alive over fretting about that...clearly being dead has a more lasting negative impact. 

Throughout our years as parents, we have been screaming and begging and pleading for help with our mentally ill children.  And really, society has given us diddly squat.  So we spank NOT because we are uneducated (we have read many parenting books and gone to many classes and talked to many experts and therapists), and NOT because we are lazy, but rather because we love this child with all our hearts and this is the only thing we have found that keeps him reasonably safe.  (Tongue-in-cheek, the psychiatrist actually agreed with me that a shock collar would probably be even more effective in that it would deliver immediate negative feedback to a brain that really struggles to grasp cause and effect.)  And until the government provides sufficient, affordable mental health care to take over some of the burden of caring for this type of child, then I do not think they have the right to tell me I cannot spank him.

OTOH, if they did enact a law, and we did continue to spank him, and they therefore did take him into protective custody, then maybe that would be the catalyst to get him the intensive, inpatient care that he needs.  So I guess that would be the upside.

Wendy

 

The help that people think is available for kids doesn’t really exist except for the wealthy.  I can’t feel anything but empathy for you.  We’ve been through the ringer on this - trying to access the services and supports our son needs to no avail.  It’s the absolute worst.  We ended up using a medication we never wanted to use because we were at the point of, if nothing changed one of us was going to need to live with one son while the other lived with the other son just to keep them both safe from one son’s brother directed aggression and anger.  Fortunately the medication helped enough that the therapy available to us was able to start helping a bit.  We could have easily been in your shoes if we had any indication it would work and the medication hadn’t worked.  We absolutely need to do better for families.  

Edited October 3, 2019 by LucyStoner

[wendyroo]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It is true, however, that most children being hit to discipline are not severely mentally unwell, and to that extent, you (and other parents like you) are outliers.

 

True, however, many other families that resort to spanking may have other severe stressors that influence their decisions.

My grandmother spanked her children extensively.  Now, granted, times were different back then and it was much more socailly acceptable, but there were also extenuating circumstances.  My grandfather had left my grandmother and their 8 young children with no support whatsoever.  They spent much of their childhood with inadequate food, very little medical care, and hovering on the brink of foreclosure.  Whereas for my children and family, the financial ramifications of the destruction caused by my mentally ill children is of little long-term consequence (and we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars of destruction over their lives), in my grandmother's household, even minor acts of childishness and disobedience could mean serious malnourishment and/or homelessness for the entire family.  My grandmother ran a tight ship and spanked the children into compliance simply because she did not feel she had a choice.  She was at work all day at two different jobs trying to put food on the table and she needed a way to motivate the children into making safe, responsible choices.

Since becoming a parent myself, I have spent a lot of time talking to my grandmother about parenting.  She wishes there had been a way for her to parent with less spanking.  She acknowledges that some of her more difficult children required more corrections then she was really comfortable doling out.  OTOH, all 8 of her children rose out of poverty to become successful, contributing adults who worshiped the ground their mother walked on and attributed much of their success to her tireless, selfless parenting.  This is not to say that the spankings did not negatively impact them, but just that the behaviors the spankings prevented would also have had serious negative consequences.  

It is not always straightforward.  If the choices are living in a home with mostly adequate food and being spanked into strict compliance or living on the street with very little food and not being spanked...I don't think it is entirely self-evident which is "better" or less traumatizing for a child.  Obviously the best answer would once again be more governmental support for struggling families.

Wendy

[maize]

Not really about spanking but since we've talked about toddlers and roads--two minutes ago I was turning onto the road towards home and a toddler--maybe 18 months--ran out right in front of my car. In the twilight.

If I had been going just a bit faster I would not have had time to stop. He was maybe three feet from my bumper.

Not the first time this has happened to me, years ago I was driving also in the twilight and saw a tot walking right down the middle of the road in front of me. Stopped the car in the middle of the road, had to knock on a couple of doors before finding his parents who didn't know he had gotten out.

I'm a bit shaken.

Edited October 3, 2019 by maize

[LucyStoner]

I come from a no-spanking family but I do recall my maternal grandmother smacking me (she hit everyone) and my parents said they thought she had shaken me so they wouldn’t leave her alone in the room.  I recall visiting once when I was older and my mom threatened my grandmother if she laid a hand on any of us kids.  One time I said something my grandmother didn’t like about her gambling and she was about to smack the shit out of me and my mother crossed the room in one step, got right in her mother’s face and hissed “don’t you dare!”  

My mother endured significant child abuse from her mom and the men in her mom’s life and was disabled from it (hearing loss and a seizure disorder caused by head trauma) and her way of not repeating that was to be very hands off discipline wise.  My husband came from a house where spanking and more was the norm.  Spanking was absolutely a non-starter for my husband, the same way it was for my mother.  

[maize]

Wendy, your stories bring up a significant point:

Sometimes, parents do have to require compliance. And the gentle parenting techniques I suspect everyone involved in this conversation favors sometimes are not sufficient.

[Pen]

Does anyone know how situations like 8yo kids pulling electric wiring out of walls is handled in Sweden?

[maize]

2 minutes ago, Pen said:

Does anyone know how situations like 8yo kids pulling electric wiring out of walls is handled in Sweden?

Shut them in a cage of some kind? Keep them in a straight jacket? Keep them sedated with medication?

No I don't know but there are limited options with a kid whose brain doesn't track with normal consequences. All of them involve something imposed on the child's body. 

If a spanking works it would seem to offer the most relative freedom.

[wendyroo]

24 minutes ago, Pen said:

Does anyone know how situations like 8yo kids pulling electric wiring out of walls is handled in Sweden?

 

19 minutes ago, maize said:

Shut them in a cage of some kind? Keep them in a straight jacket? Keep them sedated with medication?

No I don't know but there are limited options with a kid whose brain doesn't track with normal consequences. All of them involve something imposed on the child's body. 

If a spanking works it would seem to offer the most relative freedom.

Yep.  Officially his psych safety plan is that when he becomes a danger to himself or others he should be physically restrained...as in we should sit and hold him as necessary. 

The obvious problems are 1) his tantrums often go on for 4-8 hours...that is a LOT of holding, 2) I have three other children I am responsible for, and 3) restraining him is dangerous and physically brutal for all parties concerned.  While holding him he bites, scratches, pinches, attempts to hit and kick and head butt, screams as loud as he can directly in your ear, etc.  Holding him firmly enough to keep both of us relatively safe means we are both just covered in bruises and contusions.  All summer I wore jeans and long sleeve shirts because I never knew when he would throw a more violent tantrum and I would want the extra fabric protection from teeth and nails while I restrained him.

Obviously in an inpatient facility he would not be spanked, but he would have caregivers around the clock solely responsible for keeping him from injuring himself or others.  He would also be in a special facility that removed many of the "dangers" of a home...like drywall walls, glass windows, light fixtures, clothing with draw strings, other people, etc.  Also, when he was in two different inpatient facilities over the summer, both had injectable sedatives ready at all times...that is clearly not something that we have available in our toolkit...though I'm not really sure that I would consider being heavily sedated to prevent a dangerous behavior to necessarily be better than being spanked to prevent it.

Wendy

[Pen]

@wendyroo sounds incredibly difficult.  I hope something will improve hugely before he gets bigger and stronger. 

[wendyroo]

28 minutes ago, StellaM said:

When smacking is off the table for whatever reason - it's not legal, you had a bad experience of it as a child, you don't want to risk the possible negative consequences, you just don't like the thought of it, it feels weird - then a parents works out other ways. 

Yes, clearly.  In LucyStoner's post which I quoted below, she lays out that if the medication had not worked they had a "backup" plan of splitting the family in two and living separately!!!    So, yes, parents do work out "other ways".  But that "other way" would have some SERIOUS ramifications for the emotional, psychological, educational, financial, etc. health of that entire family.  And in no way I am saying it would not be the right choice if spanking were 100% off the table for them.  But, I think it is very short sighted to say that every situation is black and white in that the "other choice" is always 100% positive while spanking is 100% negative.  Sometimes it is just a judgement call between two really shitty, traumatic choices both of which may cause long-term harm to the child, the parent, the "innocent" siblings...

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

 

The help that people think is available for kids doesn’t really exist except for the wealthy.  I can’t feel anything but empathy for you.  We’ve been through the ringer on this - trying to access the services and supports our son needs to no avail.  It’s the absolute worst.  We ended up using a medication we never wanted to use because we were at the point of, if nothing changed one of us was going to need to live with one son while the other lived with the other son just to keep them both safe from one son’s brother directed aggression and anger.  Fortunately the medication helped enough that the therapy available to us was able to start helping a bit.  We could have easily been in your shoes if we had any indication it would work and the medication hadn’t worked.  We absolutely need to do better for families.  

 

[LucyStoner]

1 minute ago, wendyroo said:

Yes, clearly.  In LucyStoner's post which I quoted below, she lays out that if the medication had not worked they had a "backup" plan of splitting the family in two and living separately!!!    So, yes, parents do work out "other ways".  But that "other way" would have some SERIOUS ramifications for the emotional, psychological, educational, financial, etc. health of that entire family.  And in no way I am saying it would not be the right choice if spanking were 100% off the table for them.  But, I think it is very short sighted to say that every situation is black and white in that the "other choice" is always 100% positive while spanking is 100% negative.  Sometimes it is just a judgement call between two really shitty, traumatic choices both of which may cause long-term harm to the child, the parent, the "innocent" siblings...

 

 

There’s really no winning in the dearth of actual mental and developmental health supports.  

We are not rich.  In lost income, forgone earnings growth, slower savings rates, lost home equity, having two kids with special needs has cost us well over half a million dollars and that’s just as of a couple of years ago and while having stellar insurance.  Who the frack knows what the future will hold?  Hitting my kids would have only escalated and made matters worse, of this I am quite sure for a number of reasons but yes, the costs are real and they are high.  The amazing thing is that the kids really do like each other and get along so much of the time.  As crazy as it sounds there’s more good than bad.  We could have it so much worse!  But the summer my oldest turned 11?  I have trauma from it and the period leading up to it.  

[Melissa in Australia]

4 hours ago, Pen said:

Does anyone know how situations like 8yo kids pulling electric wiring out of walls is handled in Sweden?

no idea but I am seeing a correlation with reduced spanking and increase of chemical control- (giving of mind altering drugs to make a child more compliant.)

 

interestingly I have heard of 2 different incidents in just the last week of parents getting into trouble for removing a mobile phone from a young teen. apparently it causes emotional abuse. In the first case the parent got a 12 month good behaviour bond and in the other case it was a foster child who was then moved on. both times the phone was removed because the child was viewing non age appropriate things

Edited October 3, 2019 by Melissa in Australia

[Tanaqui]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:24 PM, Murphy101 said:

This is where I stand. The pop psychology  is crap on this.  Generations have been spanked without regret or childhood trauma.  If people can’t distinguish between a spanking and a beating - then I guess I can’t discuss anything of nuance with them. But I am unwilling to waste taxpayer resources legislating something that is not abuse and could be devastating families.

 

Have they? Because I know a lot of people choose not to spank specifically because they were spanked as kids and they wish they hadn't been. Sounds like THEY regret it.

On the flipside, I don't know anybody who wasn't spanked who grew up and decided to spank their kids.

But honestly, you can use that argument to justify almost anything. "Generations have had their foot bound without regret!" "Generations have been sent to full-time boarding school at the age of 5 without childhood trauma!" "Generations of Spartan youths have been underfed to force them to fend for themselves, and it only made them stronger! Even the ones who just starved!"

"We've been doing it this way for a long time, and I'm choosing to believe nobody has been harmed by it" isn't really a good argument. Meanwhile, there are whole cultures, plenty of them, which have never engaged in this sort of behavior. It's really not necessary, or else everybody really would do it.

Quote

I see car seats as instructive, though, about what happens when something is made a universal law rather than left up to parental judgement. There were lots of parents who decried making car seats a law because, after all, “My mom never used a car seat and I’m fine! My mom just tossed us on the floor of the station wagon! Why does the government think it has to tell us how to keep our kids safe in the car? Probably getting kickbacks from the car seat manufacturers...” 

 

The same thing happened with drunk driving laws. Less than one generation to go from "nobody can legislate away our right to judge how impaired we are after one or two drinks" and "you can't expect intoxicated people to just not drive, accidents happen" to "no, it's never okay".

[Tanaqui]

34 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

no idea but I am seeing a correlation with reduced spanking and increase of chemical control- (giving of mind altering drugs to make a child more compliant.)

 

interestingly I have heard of 2 different incidents in just the last week of parents getting into trouble for removing a mobile phone from a young teen. apparently it causes emotional abuse. In the first case the parent got a 12 month good behaviour bond and in the other case it was a foster child who was then moved on. both times the phone was removed because the child was viewing non age appropriate things

 

I feel certain that there must be more to these stories than that. Did you read this in the news somewhere, and if so, do you have a link?

[Guest]

10 hours ago, StellaM said:

This is an interesting map, for anyone who is interested  in what's happening around the world re corporal punishment of children. It's banned in the places you'd expect (those nanny state Europeans, right ?) but also in plenty of other places. Sadly not in my own country.

https://endcorporalpunishment.org/global-progress/

 

Thank you so much for that. What a useful map.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

The only facet of the smacking debate that I haven't seen talked about here, is that a non-trivial proportion of child abuse incidents result from 'normal' physical punishment gone wrong ie parent has the intent to smack only but either hits with more force than they intended, or don't stop when they intended.  So one reason for societies to say 'hey, no hitting of kids anymore' is that the line between smacking and abuse can sometimes be very blurred. 

This is one thing I found especially grave about using an implement. Since I knew quite a few “Biblical” spankers in my early years, I knew people who felt that an implement should be used for these two reasons: 1) the hand should only communicate love, so a tool should separate parent’s hands from smacking; and 2) the Bible doesn’t say “beat your child with your hand”; it says a “rod”, so to do it the “Biblical” way, you must use something that could suffice as a rod. But I always thought the better thing about using your hand, not a tool, was if you smack too hard, you will hurt your hand, which is sufficient (maybe) to help you come to your senses before harm happens. 

Here’s my true confession that goes along with this and was a catalyst in my starting to think, “I think it would be better if I just discipline with no swats or smacks whatsoever.” I was furious at my son, who was around two, for something; I don’t remember what now. I gave him a hard swat with my open hand - and connected with a toy he was holding behind him. It hit a blood vessel in my finger, which bruised and swelled immediately. It stunned me, in part to realize just how angry I had been in that moment. I would have said I didn’t spank in anger and never used an implement, so I was firmly in the non-abusive smacker category, but that was obviously not true. 

This is why I think it matters what we have in our heads as *Never Do* vs. as a “tool” to use if you think it’s needed. I was furious with my son and in my head at the time, a swat on the butt with my hand was permissible while, say, punching him in the ear or shaking him was a NEVER DO. When I briefly lost my head and went to punish him, it mattered what was allowable and what was forbidden. As a bonus, I hurt my hand, which shocked me into really seeing how I was hitting him in anger and scared me how much worse that could have been if using an implement was permissible in my mind. 

[SKL]

10 hours ago, wendyroo said:

 

Yep.  Officially his psych safety plan is that when he becomes a danger to himself or others he should be physically restrained...as in we should sit and hold him as necessary. 

The obvious problems are 1) his tantrums often go on for 4-8 hours...that is a LOT of holding, 2) I have three other children I am responsible for, and 3) restraining him is dangerous and physically brutal for all parties concerned.  While holding him he bites, scratches, pinches, attempts to hit and kick and head butt, screams as loud as he can directly in your ear, etc.  Holding him firmly enough to keep both of us relatively safe means we are both just covered in bruises and contusions.  All summer I wore jeans and long sleeve shirts because I never knew when he would throw a more violent tantrum and I would want the extra fabric protection from teeth and nails while I restrained him.

Obviously in an inpatient facility he would not be spanked, but he would have caregivers around the clock solely responsible for keeping him from injuring himself or others.  He would also be in a special facility that removed many of the "dangers" of a home...like drywall walls, glass windows, light fixtures, clothing with draw strings, other people, etc.  Also, when he was in two different inpatient facilities over the summer, both had injectable sedatives ready at all times...that is clearly not something that we have available in our toolkit...though I'm not really sure that I would consider being heavily sedated to prevent a dangerous behavior to necessarily be better than being spanked to prevent it.

Wendy

Not only the drugs, but the long-term restraining would likely be more damaging than a short-term spank IMO.

[SKL]

Nobody seems to be too interested in the negative effects of currently legal discipline other than spanking.  I've seen time-outs that were tons more traumatic for all involved than a spank or two.  The stuff of nightmares.  That will probably be next on the list of barbaric punishments to outlaw.

[SKL]

13 hours ago, Quill said:

You’re going to Ten on something that doesn’t need to be a Ten. It’s, like, a two-point-five. Don’t we have such a thing as legislation and judges that can parse out the difference, if need be? Can’t it usually be determined with relative accuracy that this parent really IS not doing a great job in the parenting department, while this parent had a bad moment? Does this always work perfectly? No; somethings weird things overstep and someone goes bananas because a ten-year-old walked two blocks to grandma’s house alone. But we don’t get rid of laws or fail to make them because wrong accusations happen sometimes. 

If you don’t hit your kids, you shouldn’t have much to worry about AFA exaggerated claims. 

It all sounds perfectly logical in your mind.  But you will not have any control over what they actually do with the power.  You know what happens with law enforcement in this country.  You can't will it away just because smart people sitting on the internet know that would be wrong.

[SKL]

12 hours ago, wendyroo said:

I have not read through this thread...I just couldn't make myself because this is such an uncomfortable topic for me.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think might contribute to Americans spanking their children is the lack of extended family/community/governmental support for parents...especially those dealing with children with mental health and neurodevelopmental challenges.

DH and I entered our parenting journey opposed to spanking.  With three of our children we have never even been tempted to spank.  With one of our children, spanking has become a regular, necessary form of behavior management.  When you have an 8 year old repeatedly kicking holes in his bedroom walls and pulling out the live electrical wires, you really can't wait for natural consequences to teach the lesson.  The psychologist doesn't know what to do; the psychiatrist doesn't know what to do; the police don't know what to do.  Upon his release, the inpatient mental health facility assured me that if he did electrocute himself that we would not be held liable because we had done everything we could.  Great.

My son does not respond to reasoning - he just doesn't or can't care.  He doesn't care about his hypothetical safety, he doesn't care about his family or home, he doesn't care about legal ramifications, he doesn't care about hospitalizations.  But he does care about avoiding spankings.  It is an immediate negative consequence that we use to curtail the very most dangerous behaviors.  Maybe spanking will have a lasting negative impact on his mental health (though his mental state started out SOOOOOOO unhealthy that it seems a bit of a moot point), but we have had to prioritize keeping him alive over fretting about that...clearly being dead has a more lasting negative impact. 

Throughout our years as parents, we have been screaming and begging and pleading for help with our mentally ill children.  And really, society has given us diddly squat.  So we spank NOT because we are uneducated (we have read many parenting books and gone to many classes and talked to many experts and therapists), and NOT because we are lazy, but rather because we love this child with all our hearts and this is the only thing we have found that keeps him reasonably safe.  (Tongue-in-cheek, the psychiatrist actually agreed with me that a shock collar would probably be even more effective in that it would deliver immediate negative feedback to a brain that really struggles to grasp cause and effect.)  And until the government provides sufficient, affordable mental health care to take over some of the burden of caring for this type of child, then I do not think they have the right to tell me I cannot spank him.

OTOH, if they did enact a law, and we did continue to spank him, and they therefore did take him into protective custody, then maybe that would be the catalyst to get him the intensive, inpatient care that he needs.  So I guess that would be the upside.

Wendy

My cousin has been living in institutions since childhood because his mom was unable to stop him from harming himself and others.

I will say the unpopular thing - I'm glad you were able to find something that works, and that that something is legal in the USA.

[Sneezyone]

The thing about spanking is that KIDS DON'T STAY SMALL. By the time my brother was 12 years old he was 6'1 and 200lbs. If he'd been enraged/fearful about being spanked and/or his brain was compromised by mental illness, he could have seriously hurt or killed my parents (or the other children in the home) in retaliation or in the heat of the moment. My sister is bipolar and I have witnessed her violent episodes. I have seen the property damage to our home/her cars/my moms cars. I also have friends with teens (more than one) that have to be hospitalized on a semi-regular basis. One is a diagnosed sociopath. They don't spank. They didn't spank. The idea that my child could turn on me, overpower me, or do harm to others would stop me in my tracks. Sometimes an institutional setting (temporary or permanent) is the safest place someone can be.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I hate to say it but whether they’re spanked or not has very little to do with violence against a caregiver down the line.  We have some absolutely horror stories in my special needs mom group from women who were the most attached, gentle parents.  If their discipline methods made a difference it isn’t really measurable, given that their child can still punch, kick, or bite them with their full adult size bodies.  
 

You don’t have to model hitting in anger or discipline for a child to decide to hit, that’s ridiculous.  And unfortunately with special needs and the boundary issues, sensory seeking, emotionally labile kiddos, no amount of love and gentleness and redirection will head off or convince a kid in a rage to be reasonable and gentle in return.  It doesn’t work like that 😞

 

I'm not saying/suggesting that you have to model it for it to happen. I'm saying I would not want to model behavior that could potentially be turned on me, regardless. By the same token, spanking is not going to rewire the brain or eliminate the impulse to strike out or hurt yourself or others. It doesn't work  that way either. I agree...spanking will not and cannot be an effective deterrent in these cases, so why do it at all? 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Sneezyone

[wendyroo]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The thing about spanking is that KIDS DON'T STAY SMALL. By the time my brother was 12 years old he was 6'1 and 200lbs. If he'd been as engaged/fearful about being spanked and/or his brain was compromised by mental illness, he could have seriously hurt or killed my parents (or the other children in the home) in retaliation or in the heat of the moment. My sister is bipolar and I have witnessed her violent episodes. I have seen the property damage to our home/her cars/my moms cars. I also have friends with teens (more than one) that have to be hospitalized on a semi-regular basis. One is a diagnosed sociopath. They don't spank. They didn't spank. The idea that my child could turn on me, overpower me, or do harm to others would stop me in my tracks. Sometimes an institutional setting (temporary or permanent) is the safest place someone can be.

It does indeed scare me to think about what will happen when my son gets bigger and stronger.  That doesn't change the fact that we need to use all the tools in our toolkit in an effort to keep us all safe today.  I have three other children growing up in the middle of what is more or less a traumatic war zone.  Every day takes a psychological toll on them.  Every day takes a physical and psychological toll on me and DH.  Every day is an emotional and financial drain on the family.

Honestly, I am less concerned about our safety in the future, because multiple police officers who have responded to my son's violence have told me that if he is still as violent and destructive as a teenager as he is now that he will probably be sent to a juvenile detention facility.  It boggles the mind that having him incarcerated in a juvenile corrections facility would be an improvement on the situation - but at this point that is where we stand.  Obviously an inpatient mental health facility would be ideal, but that is simply not an option.  For now he is not deemed big enough or dangerous enough to warrant more drastic police intervention.  But he is getting bigger every day.   

Wendy

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

Unfortunately that isn’t true either.  Physical consequences of various types can absolutely be an effective deterrent, as Wendy stated above.  It just depends.  

 

You need to be specific about the physical deterrents you're talking about. Straight jackets are a physical restraint. Suicide cells are a physical restraint too. Spanking an adult-size person with an implement is asking for trouble.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

It does indeed scare me to think about what will happen when my son gets bigger and stronger.  That doesn't change the fact that we need to use all the tools in our toolkit in an effort to keep us all safe today.  I have three other children growing up in the middle of what is more or less a traumatic war zone.  Every day takes a psychological toll on them.  Every day takes a physical and psychological toll on me and DH.  Every day is an emotional and financial drain on the family.

Honestly, I am less concerned about our safety in the future, because multiple police officers who have responded to my son's violence have told me that if he is still as violent and destructive as a teenager as he is now that he will probably be sent to a juvenile detention facility.  It boggles the mind that having him incarcerated in a juvenile corrections facility would be an improvement on the situation - but at this point that is where we stand.  Obviously an inpatient mental health facility would be ideal, but that is simply not an option.  For now he is not deemed big enough or dangerous enough to warrant more drastic police intervention.  But he is getting bigger every day.   

Wendy

 

My mother had a failed adoption of an older child who exhibited these kids of behaviors as a child. She had alarms on her doors, locked up her knives, you name it. I understand how traumatic that can be. I understand why you would use this tool. I just have very strong reservations about its application in situations like this. My friend's daughter is in inpatient care right now. They are fortunate that they have AMAZING insurance that covers this. It shouldn't be the case that only some people have access to that kind of care. I am sorry you're dealing with this.

[maize]

I responded with a sad emoji Wendy but really wanted a hugs emoji. The lack of resources is a huge problem.

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Unfortunately that isn’t true either.  Physical consequences of various types can absolutely be an effective deterrent, as Wendy stated above.  It just depends.  

Right.  I've seen it stop the behavior permanently.  It doesn't always work that way, but the violent behavior by the child came first and happens in both spanking and non-spanking families.  In my personal observation it usually lasts longer in non-spanking families, which means other kids are getting hurt by peers (and learning to hit others), to save a hitter from getting spanked.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No thanks, I refuse to get into the weeds on this very useless and circular topic.  I discipline each of my kids differently depending on their personality and needs, and the more I see the nitty gritty of situations with a very neurodiverse population, the more hesitant I am to pontificate about the efficacy or morality of the various methods used.  These are complex situations, especially with lower function or non-verbal.  I’m running into it myself and the answers aren’t nearly as pat as this thread would make it sound.  

 

Well, if the suggestion is that spanking is the only form of physical deterrent, your comment makes no sense. If you consider the much broader range of options that restrict the body and deter harm to self and others, OF COURSE it can be effective.