Pure Parents » Parenting Class

O/T about my grandbabies

admin — Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

that is why I fell HARD for him … but then he fell Harder for me !! Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Alright Maryjo! I’m very happy for you. Some people just have to learn the hard way. But sometimes that’s the best way in the end. Staci

Response:

(like an episode of Jerry Springer…) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael > and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to > Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the > presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and > alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO > contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices > ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. > Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any > contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to > Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the > above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away > up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system > .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

is this NAstiness necessary?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> (like an episode of Jerry Springer…)

Response:

That’s so wonderful! It is something that just can’t be replaced, or bought or… You are lucky to have found Robert and so is your whole family!! Debs – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Linda > Robert makes sure that Dawn feels wanted … We both feel that a parent’s love > should be unconditional … and he does boast to everyone how he has 2 > daughters !! > He told Dawn the door will always be open for her and the kids … BUT .. not > the abuser …. and with the understanding that drugs and alcohol will not be > tolerated > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Excellent rules from Robert. He’s a kind man MJ. Good luck to you all. Hugs, Linda

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Linda > Robert makes sure that Dawn feels wanted … We both feel that a parent’s love > should be unconditional … and he does boast to everyone how he has 2 > daughters !! > He told Dawn the door will always be open for her and the kids … BUT .. not > the abuser …. and with the understanding that drugs and alcohol will not be > tolerated > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo, That’s great that Dawn’s getting the kids back. Hopefully she got scared really good and that’s all she needed! My thoughts are still with you and her and the whole family! Debs – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael > and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to > Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the > presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and > alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO > contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices > ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. > Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any > contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to > Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the > above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away > up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system > .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Linda Robert makes sure that Dawn feels wanted … We both feel that a parent’s love should be unconditional … and he does boast to everyone how he has 2 daughters !! He told Dawn the door will always be open for her and the kids … BUT .. not the abuser …. and with the understanding that drugs and alcohol will not be tolerated Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Robert truly sounds like a wonderful man, no wonder you are so happy! : ) Ceresse

Response:

Fran (Eluned) Dawn did call me up first thing this morning and asked if someone could help her get down there .. She does not have a drivers license … Of course, that could be arranged .. My dad already said he would drive up there with me in his services, Dawn can not leave until she fulfills the requirements the State of NY CPS requires … parenting classes, and drug and alcohol counseling Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo- Great news! I hope that everything works out for Dawn! Be well- Tracy CD class of ‘98 my homepage: http://home.talkcity.com/ParadiseDr/goodboie/index.html : ) smile – it makes people wonder what you’re up to!

Response:

Prayers still coming your way — it sounds like Dawn is on the right track and I hope she can continue to get help. Rebecca

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael > and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to > Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the > presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and > alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO > contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices > ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. > Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any > contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to > Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the > above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away wake > up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system > .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo, Sounds like Robert has more than enough love to give another "child" in Dawn. I hope she will realize how fortunate she really is. I just don’t understand Denis – rather than helping the situation, he’s been a hindrance it seems. You be sure to take care of Maryjo. I’ll be keeping you in my prayers. Hugs, Linda

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Linda she > also needs she won’t get … her dads support … He has banned her from > calling or anything to his and Karen’s home … what a shame … I wish that > sometimes I could shake some sense into some people …… but I can’t .. Dawn > has been talking with Robert as he is right now the closest thing to a father > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Linda also needs she won’t get … her dads support … He has banned her from calling or anything to his and Karen’s home … what a shame … I wish that sometimes I could shake some sense into some people …… but I can’t .. Dawn has been talking with Robert as he is right now the closest thing to a father Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

An answer to prayers!!! Thank you for sharing this Maryjo, it feels like the best news possible given the situation. {{{{{Maryjo & Dawn & Michael & Lilly}}}}}}} Ceresse

Response:

Unfortunatly I can’t make the trip at this time up to NY .. and I really don’t think I could handle the cold and snow .. She lives in Upstate NY and can see the mountains from her home .. Besides that, I would not dream of leaving my husband right yet … maybe when … and then I just might take him along anyways … She needs to handle this on her own .. It will either make her or break her Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

I did talk with Michael on the phone … He told me he goes to kool (school – aka daycare).. and has a new tuck .(truck).. and he wuv wu mema (love you grandma) … then he said bye night night … and then Lilly did a giggle thing on the phone … Dawn was so happy that she left the message on my answer machine to call her when I was able to .. she had something to say to me … I know in my heart that she loves those babies, I just hope and pray that she does right for them !! Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo, are you able to take time off of work and go visit them? Then you could see for yourself how she and the kids are doing. Just a thought. But, I know it would be easier if they were a lot closer to Florida. — Take Care, Sherry :o)

Thanks Sherry … sure wish she was here so that we can remind her of that without running up long distance charges on the phone !! Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo, Great news! Hopefully this was the scare Dawn needed. Actually having the children taken away was probably a good thing, not for the kids of course, but children are so resilient. I will keep Dawn, Michael, and Lilly in my prayers. Dawn has a long road in front of her – she’ll do the right thing Maryjo. Staying away from the old group of "friends" will be a great start! Hugs, Linda

Response:

Thanks Sherry … sure wish she was here so that we can remind her of that without running up long distance charges on the phone !! Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

I’m so glad to hear this Maryjo. :-) Bet those babies are happy to be back with their Mommy! Thanks for sharing this good news. ~~~~Pat CD Class of 98 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->"Maryjo" wrote > I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael > and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to > Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the > presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and > alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO > contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices > ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. > Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any > contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to > Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the > above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away wake > up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system > .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court > Peace and Love > Maryjo

Response:

Great news Maryjo. I can tell you have a good feeling about all this. Thanks for sharing. Let us know how she does and how the children are doing. UM MOM Susan

Response:

I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Maryjo, That’s wonderful news!!! I really hope she sticks to the "rules" this time so she can be there for her kids and be a good mother. I’m sure she will because she loves her kids. With you and Robert sticking behind her that’s sure to help her. I love good news!!! : ) — Take Care, Sherry :o)

I just want to let my newsgroup family, thank you for your prayers … Michael and Lilly were allowed to go back home tonight .. My daughter has to comply to Child Protective Services … No alcohol or drugs in the home or in the presence of Michael and Lilly … Dawn will be tested randomly for drugs and alcohol … they will also do surprise visits to the home … Absolutely NO contact with the sperm donor, his relatives (except for his not by blood neices ) .. the babysitter and some other guy that was at the house New Years Eve .. Dawn is also not allowed to have contact or Michael and Lilly to have any contact with any known abuser of alcohol or drugs … She will have to go to Parenting Classes and attend drug and alcohol classes … She agreed to the above and knows that if she screws up they will take Michael and Lilly away wake up call .. She can not leave NY yet as she has to go through the court system .. and she has to testify against the sperm donor when he goes to court Peace and Love Maryjo

Response:

Should CPS remove children without proof?

admin — Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> 20/20 Primetime spent 5 months investigating the Hines Family. Their son > suffered numerous fractures.

Osteogenesis Imperfecta is as rare as hen’s teeth. Sure, there need to be tests and criteria to exclude it. We’ll have them soon. But since "proof" is obtainable in a legal sense only by a court, and since a potential victim, namely a child, should NOT be left in their potential abuser’s clutches, then CPS should take charge of them till a court determination can be made. The State has a responsibility to children to protect them from abusive parents. We do NOT leave ANY other victim in the clutches of their assailant, and we cannot do that in the case of a child with respect to their parent either if the parent is suspect. Steve

Response:

20/20 Primetime spent 5 months investigating the Hines Family. Their son suffered numerous fractures. The child suffered a fracture when he was in Foster Care, also. However, CPS in the Midwest did not consider that fact to be significant. The story was presented last Thursday on ABC PrimeTime 20/20. The family had to flee the country and face criminal charges, merely because no alternate assessments were permitted by CPS. Recently a New York court ruled that CPS MUST PROVIDE specific, targeted services to families, and not just the usual Parenting Classes, substance abuse, Anger Management or individual counselling. Just as children with learning disabilites are expected to be provided alternate ways of educating them, CPS is supposed to make efforts to correct the family’s situation without the drastic incarceration of Foster Care. Http://www.abcnews.com – Go to Hines Story under 20/20 or Primetime. Http://www.protectourfamilies.com (Hines site in Midwest)

Response:

Parental disagreement

admin — Mon, 06 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

>Thanks Dorothy, that was helpful. I’ve read Faber & Mazlish and I like >their ideas, but proactive comes much more naturally to me than to my >husband who is more reactive by nature. In a way I think that is one of >their flaws in that they assume that anyone can just change and behave >differently and maybe this is unrealistic for some people.

I don’t think that change comes easily, but I think that a parent who *analyzes* his own style and realizes that he wants to change can. It takes effort certainly and it takes more if he is doing out of habit what his own parents did. >He agrees with the principles when we discuss them in calmer moments >and we did talk about childrearing before we were even married, it is >just putting the ideas into practice seems hard for him…… >And your guess is right. His dad disciplined with a belt and although I >told him before we had a child that I would never allow physical >punishment (and he agreed), I think the influence of his experience is >still there. He has no bad feelings towards his parents and doesn’t >think what they did was so bad.

Interestingly, I think men often internalize abuse this way. They make it their fault no matter what the parent did. >He always thinks I am exagerating with the safety issues but I feel >real concern because sometimes he gets distracted and doesn’t watch her >very carefully or throws her about recklessly in play. I am so scared >that if I don’t say anything something will happen and I don’t want to >have an "I told you so" issue over this. >Gillian

Well, in this case, you probably should act, not argue about it. If you see your child in an unsafe situation take her out of it. But remember that men do play more freely with children than women do and that it often is not as dangerous as it looks and can be valuable for them. The child gets a freedom of movement and a sense of her capability with her body that is a good thing with the rough and tumble play dad does with her. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We have a two year old and we would never forbid her from splashing, > >or throwing toys on the floor (unless she was endangering someone > >else). It would be a complete exercise in futility since she would > >certainly continue to do it anyway. Not because she is defiant but > >because she has an irresistable urge to do exactly these things. > >Telling a young child not to do something like that is just an excuse > >for punishment …. "I didn’t want to spank him – he made me do it". > >Distraction works a whole lot better. > hmmmm. I believe most parents are wise enough to come up with > alternatives in such a case. Something between anarchy and spanking. > How about simply ending the bath? It works wonders. >Hey, Jim, I totally agree. When my son was a young toddler and insisted >on standing up in the tub (which is extremely dangerous at that age), I >summarily ended the bath. He got the message in pretty short order.

Something that is dangerous, however, is totally different from simply splashing water out of the bath while playing, don’t you think? >Same for trying to step off the curb and into the street. He did it, >the outing ended. >Even toddlers understand instantaneous, logical consequences applied >consistently. They’re just young, they’re not dumb. (More’s the pity. >They’d be much easier to raise if they *were* dumb!)

Absolutely, Barb, but that isn’t punishment. Keeping the child safe involves supervising and physically restraining them from doing unsafe actions. The question though is what actions are really unsafe and which ones can be allowed under supervision and which ones are safe, but simply cause a mess that adults dislike. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We have a two year old and we would never forbid her from splashing, >or throwing toys on the floor (unless she was endangering someone >else). It would be a complete exercise in futility since she would >certainly continue to do it anyway. Not because she is defiant but >because she has an irresistable urge to do exactly these things. >Telling a young child not to do something like that is just an excuse >for punishment …. "I didn’t want to spank him – he made me do it". >Distraction works a whole lot better. >hmmmm. I believe most parents are wise enough to come up with >alternatives in such a case. Something between anarchy and spanking. >How about simply ending the bath? It works wonders. >Rubbish! Family life is not the military. There are no "orders". >Some of us feel otherwise. I personally have better things to do than >spend a bath time distracting. . . .

Really, what better things? This is a time to relax and have fun with your child.. If the floor gets a little wet, what does it matter, the floor can be cleaned. And your toddler is learning about science concepts by playing in the water, give her toys and containers she can pour water to and from. Bath time doesn’t have to be all business. Sure she can get clean – learn to do it herself with your help, but it’s also fun and relaxing and gets her ready for sleep as long as it doesn’t get too wild. When you are bathing your child, what else are you doing that takes precedence over spending this time with him? Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

>And I say DOWN WITH the THEORIES! DOWN WITH IRRESPONSIBLE > COUNSELORS. LONG LIVE FAMILY. Be wise, don’t let anybody manipulate you. No > knee jerk !

He says, laughably, when all he IS is a jerk, an anti-intellectual with no brains to call his own!! The rampant behavior problems of such clowns as he represents always backfire and these morons are the very people who have their kids run away and/or punch them the fuck right out!! These are the abusive assholes you see in divorce court, those fools with NO REGARD whatsoever who think THEY don’t need any "counseling" or "therapy" or any of that "fag" stuff! Oh No, THEY don’t need a doctor, lawyer, minister, in other words they are the kind who are finally seen aptly to be what are finally, that they are all the WET OR DRY DRUNKS of this world. These are the homophobic neurotic guys abused-as-a-child, who become the child-and-spouse-abusing ragers! > Cmmon! Why everyone else can order people about, but not parents? Military, > police, teachers, firefighters, bosses, bureaocrats of all sorts and levels. > If one thinks about the only reasonable answer is – because of the > anti-family brainwash in mass media and elsewhere.

So this is your payback for getting told what to do all day?? Come home and beat your wife and kids?? You’re just what I thought you were, a total asshole. Steve

Response:

> > hmmmm. I believe most parents are wise enough to come up with > alternatives in such a case. Something between anarchy and spanking. > How about simply ending the bath? It works wonders. > Hey, Jim, I totally agree. When my son was a young toddler and insisted > on standing up in the tub (which is extremely dangerous at that age), I > summarily ended the bath. He got the message in pretty short order.

I guess! How could he stand in the thub if he is not in the thub, let alone splash. All these parenting theories have some evil magic. They switch reason off. What is the most striking they debilitate both supporters and opponents. I think any real parent would do what Jim suggests. But when discussing stupid theory people get stupid. I definitely do. I just can not see this crap wrecking what could be good family. > Even toddlers understand instantaneous, logical consequences applied > consistently. They’re just young, they’re not dumb. (More’s the pity. > They’d be much easier to raise if they *were* dumb!)

But then it wouldn’t be worthy the trouble.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi all, > I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and > haven’t > seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? > What do you do when you disagree? > My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has > read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. I’ve tried telling > him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet but he gets > annoyed > at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the ideas and we just > end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb > a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss. > Gillian > Before you buy. > I can relate so well to some of this – at least the disagreement on > parenting. Or actually, in my case, not a real disagreement in words, > but in actions. My dh is 18 years older than me and has raised 3 kids > (oldest is 24 and youngest is 20.) He (they) raised them with spanking > as a normal punishment method, which was a little more acceptable by > society at the time than it is now that we are wiser. And he sometimes > has the typical response that "it didn’t hurt them – look how they > turned out anyway." > But, we have talked before and he agreed that we should try not to > spank they boys, and even in some cases when he hasn’t necessarily > agreed that spanking wasn’t right, he has agreed to follow my wishes of > how I want to raise our boys (which is without spanking.) But he still > occasionally swats them when he gets to a point that he is at a loss > for how else to get them to "behave". Everytime it happens, I get > angry at him and then frustrated that I can’t say so in front of the > boys. I have never told the boys that "Daddy was wrong. He’s not > supposed to hit you" because I don’t want to make Daddy out to be bad > in their minds. Trying to maintain a united front. But it’s hard when > they say "Daddy hit me" or "It hurts." I don’t know how to respond to > that. > Up until recently, it has been such an infrequent thing that I haven’t > stressed over it for long. And when I do bring it up to him, he won’t > talk about it, but just says "I know, I know that’s how you want it > done." He takes it as me "coming down on him for being wrong." He > doesn’t want to read the childraising books and at times comments that > I am supposed to summarize things for him when I read them, but because > of that, he isn’t getting the other ideas like I do of how to handle > all of the different child situations. He doesn’t want me to read the > whole book to him – he just want’s the Cliff’s Notes version, or less. > He doesn’t like to have discussions on childrearing methods in any > detail. It doesn’t interest him to go into a lot of detail to find > different ways to deal with different situations. > In the past 2 days, he has swatted each of the boys once. Only one > swat each, but it shocks me whenever he does it. And both times, I > think it was because he told them to get up and do something, gave them > the count of 3 to start moving, and when they just sat there in their > tantrum and glared at him, picked each up and swatted them. Then > picked them up and put them where they were supposed to be anyway. > Last night, I was so upset by the second instance of this that I > snatched the boy out of the room and took him to do the thing he was > refusing to do anyway (come upstairs to brush teeth and go to bed) and > didn’t talk to dh the rest of the night. I don’t know how. I’m so > worried that with the boys in their latest stage, being much more > difficult and defiant and aggressive than usual, that this swatting is > going to happen more and more often and become his preferred method of > discipline out of habit. I know it’s mostly because he doesn’t have > the patience I have and takes the easy way out, but I don’t want him to > do it. Especially when it’s not over something safety-related, like > running out into the street. If he is going to do it occasionally, I > wish he’d pick the REALLY SERIOUS offenses to use it, and not just > everyday toddler stuff. > Anyway, I needed to unload a little on you guys, because I still > haven’t said anything to him. I am going to try to say something > tonight. > — > Cindy, Twins Mommy to Robert and Michael, 6/28/98

As soon as these little guys get bigger he’s gonna get the shit punched out of him. I’ve seen it happen in one household after another as the kids got big enough, the old man-asshole winds up on his back looking up wondering what the hell happened!!! These old fuck-asshole fathers never TELL you THAT!! They’re too embarrassed! Steve

Response:

I’m with you. I never went in for how throwing toys on the floor or playing with food are supposed to be learning experiences or expressions of exhuberance. Throwing things are apt to damage the thrown things, and any thing around. Food is for eating. PlayDough and finger paints have already been invented for play and exhuberant expression – best to use those. Kids who don’t learn early that there are limits to behavior, and times and places and mediums for rowdiness and expression, will be the problematic, rule-pushing adults we run into everyday. Banty (sounding like Judge Judy today, I know)

Response:

> >Respect to one’s parents is way more important than brushing one’s teeth, >no matter what dental companies say in their advertisements. It is rather >fancy to make two year old brush her teeth. But if you tell her not to >throw blocks or not to splash and she immediately disobeys it begs for >action. Not necessarily spanking. But why not after all? > We have a two year old and we would never forbid her from splashing, > or throwing toys on the floor

Nobody makes you to. And there is definitely no serious reason not to throw blocks on the floor. Unless the father just asked not to do this. > It would be a complete exercise in futility since she would > certainly continue to do it anyway.Not because she is defiant but

Does it mean that no child is defiant? Of course not! Children might well be defiant. And they might well throw blocks to the floor to demonstrate their defiance. And that blatant demonstration might precipitate punishment. But Gillian’s problem is not in the deciding wether to punish or not to punish. It is weighting her own interests against the media hyped indoctrination camaign. Her reasoning is absolutely totalitarian. (Well, not absolutely. Steve gave us an example of absolutely totalitarian reasoning. She is not like that.) She follows books religeously and just doesn’t consider alternatves. She must decide if loyalty to trashy "parenting books" is above loyalty to her family. Apparently both she and her husband are young and unexperienced. They both will grow wiser with time, unless the evil anti-family propaganda ruins their life. She asks if she can disregard the theories and be herself – a loving and caring mom and wife. And I say DOWN WITH the THEORIES! DOWN WITH IRRESPONSIBLE COUNSELORS. LONG LIVE FAMILY. Be wise, don’t let anybody manipulate you. No knee jerk reflexes! Books are just bound sheets of pressured cellulose. Are they more important than alive and loving human being? because she has an irresistable urge to do exactly these things. > Telling a young child not to do something like that is just an excuse > for punishment ….

Not necessarily. It might be too much noise. A child might throw on the floor a box of bloks parent just collected all over the floor… may be not for the first time. The child might well be testing the limits. She might be testing relative political influence of mother and father. There are lots of reasons why parent might enforce obedience other that plain sadism. > "I didn’t want to spank him – he made me do it". > Distraction works a whole lot better.

For some things distraction doesn’t work at all. If child is throwing blocks becaused she is bored to death distraction will definitely help. If she is testing limits it wont. Argument between parents might be good distraction. But it is a bad way to set limits. Beside that distraction might well work for her husband too. Why she should jump into the deadly path of conflicts and possibly divorce where the society tries to push her? >> I’ve tried telling him >> alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t >> understand that splashing water makes the floor wet >She doesn’t need to understand that. It is enough to obey orders. > Rubbish! Family life is not the military. There are no "orders".

Cmmon! Why everyone else can order people about, but not parents? Military, police, teachers, firefighters, bosses, bureaocrats of all sorts and levels. If one thinks about the only reasonable answer is – because of the anti-family brainwash in mass media and elsewhere.

Response:

>We have a two year old and we would never forbid her from splashing, >or throwing toys on the floor (unless she was endangering someone >else). It would be a complete exercise in futility since she would >certainly continue to do it anyway. Not because she is defiant but >because she has an irresistable urge to do exactly these things. >Telling a young child not to do something like that is just an excuse >for punishment …. "I didn’t want to spank him – he made me do it". >Distraction works a whole lot better.

hmmmm. I believe most parents are wise enough to come up with alternatives in such a case. Something between anarchy and spanking. How about simply ending the bath? It works wonders. >Rubbish! Family life is not the military. There are no "orders".

Some of us feel otherwise. I personally have better things to do than spend a bath time distracting. . . . — Jim

Response:

It *is* hard when you don’t agree. I think I tend to think about it first. Why is she misbehaving? Is she tired, or hungry? My husband doesn’t think about it. He just knows she isn’t doing what he asked her to do. We don’t argue about it in front of the kids. I’m sure I do things he doesn’t agree with. We both just chalk it up to different personalities and styles. I do it my way when I’m with the kids, and he does it his way when he’s with them. I think he’s starting to stop and think a bit more though lately. Later, Sophie mom to Charlotte (2.4 yrs) and Patrick (1 yr on Thursday!)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi all, > I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and haven’t > seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? > What do you do when you disagree? > My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. I’ve tried telling him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet but he gets annoyed > at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the ideas and we just > end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss. > Gillian > Before you buy.

I can relate so well to some of this – at least the disagreement on parenting. Or actually, in my case, not a real disagreement in words, but in actions. My dh is 18 years older than me and has raised 3 kids (oldest is 24 and youngest is 20.) He (they) raised them with spanking as a normal punishment method, which was a little more acceptable by society at the time than it is now that we are wiser. And he sometimes has the typical response that "it didn’t hurt them – look how they turned out anyway." But, we have talked before and he agreed that we should try not to spank they boys, and even in some cases when he hasn’t necessarily agreed that spanking wasn’t right, he has agreed to follow my wishes of how I want to raise our boys (which is without spanking.) But he still occasionally swats them when he gets to a point that he is at a loss for how else to get them to "behave". Everytime it happens, I get angry at him and then frustrated that I can’t say so in front of the boys. I have never told the boys that "Daddy was wrong. He’s not supposed to hit you" because I don’t want to make Daddy out to be bad in their minds. Trying to maintain a united front. But it’s hard when they say "Daddy hit me" or "It hurts." I don’t know how to respond to that. Up until recently, it has been such an infrequent thing that I haven’t stressed over it for long. And when I do bring it up to him, he won’t talk about it, but just says "I know, I know that’s how you want it done." He takes it as me "coming down on him for being wrong." He doesn’t want to read the childraising books and at times comments that I am supposed to summarize things for him when I read them, but because of that, he isn’t getting the other ideas like I do of how to handle all of the different child situations. He doesn’t want me to read the whole book to him – he just want’s the Cliff’s Notes version, or less. He doesn’t like to have discussions on childrearing methods in any detail. It doesn’t interest him to go into a lot of detail to find different ways to deal with different situations. In the past 2 days, he has swatted each of the boys once. Only one swat each, but it shocks me whenever he does it. And both times, I think it was because he told them to get up and do something, gave them the count of 3 to start moving, and when they just sat there in their tantrum and glared at him, picked each up and swatted them. Then picked them up and put them where they were supposed to be anyway. Last night, I was so upset by the second instance of this that I snatched the boy out of the room and took him to do the thing he was refusing to do anyway (come upstairs to brush teeth and go to bed) and didn’t talk to dh the rest of the night. I don’t know how. I’m so worried that with the boys in their latest stage, being much more difficult and defiant and aggressive than usual, that this swatting is going to happen more and more often and become his preferred method of discipline out of habit. I know it’s mostly because he doesn’t have the patience I have and takes the easy way out, but I don’t want him to do it. Especially when it’s not over something safety-related, like running out into the street. If he is going to do it occasionally, I wish he’d pick the REALLY SERIOUS offenses to use it, and not just everyday toddler stuff. Anyway, I needed to unload a little on you guys, because I still haven’t said anything to him. I am going to try to say something tonight. — Cindy, Twins Mommy to Robert and Michael, 6/28/98 (Fraternal Twin Boys) Before you buy.

Response:

> > My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories > It is good idea to disregard theories when they are in your way. It seems > they are. Authors of these theories aren’t responsible for your family. > They don’t care about your happiness. The care only about serving sponsor’s > agenda.

When it comes to seeing a tiny child hit that is ABUSE!! That is NOT merely some aesthetic opinion!! > and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling. > So what? Don’t worry. It happens with the first child. Alredy with the > second one your husband will get much more lazy and patient. And no matter > what bookish politically correct propaganda says no child have yet died > because of yellind.

BULLSHIT!! Children are harmed their whole life by what she described!! It can destroy their entire life! What the fuck did you THINK does that to some people, just a bad night!!???? > A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. > You have to be wise. The worst thing parents can do is to let child see > their disagreement. It is worse that year long spanking. Child could grow > "political", cuningly playing on your disagreements. What might be worse?

BULLSHIT!! It’s GOOD for a child to see that parents don’t agree about the child getting HIT!!! It keeps them from taking all blame and self-hate onto themselves, it prevents over half the damage done to them otherwise!! The kids who were beaten terribly, if they had just one other person who told them they didn;’t deserve that, were MUCH more able to hold out and escape that abuse and not become psychotic!! > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. > Respect to one’s parents is way more important than brushing one’s teeth, > no matter what dental companies say in their advertisements. It is rather > fancy to make two year old brush her teeth. But if you tell her not to > throw blocks or not to splash and she immediately disobeys it begs for > action. Not necessarily spanking. But why not after all?

You’re an abusive SHIT, buddy!! Get the FUCK OFF this group!! > I’ve tried telling him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet > She doesn’t need to understand that. It is enough to obey orders.

Fuck you in the asshole, you were abused yourself, which is why you are bound and determined to pay YOUR abuse back to other children!! You need to be CASTRATED!!! > but he gets annoyed at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the > ideas > Are these ideas really worth it?

YES!! You ignorant Texas buttshit!! YES!! > and we just end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each > other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. > Forget it. As I’ve alredy wrote he will eventually get lazy and patient. > He’ve got too much energy and devotion and too few children to accomodate > it all.

That’s the complete ignorance/incompetence theory of fatherhood!! Get out of that relationship with your kid!! > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument > That is strange. Will your argument with your husband keep child on the > sidewalk or off the wall? You have to go and catch child by the hand or > take her off the wall WITHOUT arguing. If you’ve agreed not to argue in > child’s presence he won’t argue. And if you are patient with his actions he > will pay in kind. One argument that worked for my dad and for me is that > being hit by a car only once is more than enough. Even if there is one > chance per million you just have no right for error. (it is about running > in the streets, not about spanking.)

That doesn’t happen. It is used as an EXCUSE FOR ABUSE THOUSANDS of times more often than it does anything, and it never does anything good! A child who is terrified simply panics and does nothing. A child who is taught patiently understands and bases their action on reason!!! > but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s. > I think that is the purpose of all those "parenting books" you’ve read. > They want to get parents out and bureaocrats and counselors of all sorts > in.

With shitheads like YOU around hell YES!! It’s better than your ABUSE!! > I’m pretty sure that is the main cause of school shootings and other > unpleasant things.

All the kids involved in the school shootings were beaten by harshly discipline-fixated fathers!! That’s WHY they flipped out!! > I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss. > That is clear. There is nothing more stupid than going to marriage > counseling. There is just no reason why two adult people should entrust > their life to the guy who is not responsible in any way for the effect of > his suggestions, while you have the happiness of your entire family at > stake.

Now if only her child-husband understood that instead of merely knee-jerking the same abuse he was victim of! > One really have to develop enough self-respect to treat these counselors > with contempt they deserve. The same is true for "parenting books" and > "theories" if they are in your way. > Alex.

You really do NOT know what the fuck you’re talking about! Steve

Response:

proactive comes much more naturally to me than to my > husband who is more reactive by nature. > He agrees with the principles when we discuss them in calmer moments > and we did talk about childrearing before we were even married, it is > just putting the ideas into practice seems hard for him…… > And your guess is right. His dad disciplined with a belt and although

Gillian, Have you considered using a "safe word"? It’s something that Chris and I use when one or the other is about to lose our temper with Garrett. It’s just a word for the non-involved parent to whisper to the parent who’s about to blow up at the kid. It’s a reminder word that says "you’re about to lose (or have lost) your temper, and are being unreasonable; back off for a moment." Our parenting safe word is "Popsicle." Usually what happens, is that the angry parent turns to argue with the non-involved (and cooler) parent about how they WEREN’T being unreasonable. BUT by the time they turn their attention back to the child, they’ve been distracted enough, that much of the heat has gone out of their dealings with the child. (That’s how I most often respond to Chris saying it to me. After I’ve calmed down fully, I then realize that he was right). Another reaction is "you’re right, I’m over-reacting; sorry Garrett." Yet another observed reaction is for the angry parent to seemingly ignore the non-involved parent, but to become noticably more reasonable toward the child. Both of these responses are more typicle of how Chris handles it. A couple of important considerations: Both parents have to agree to it. AND this is really important: DO NOT OVERUSE IT!!! It loses it’s effectiveness if it’s used too often. Chris and I both are pretty volatile; fortunately, it’s rare that we’re both angry at the same time! For both of us, losing our temper is the hardest part of parenting, which is why we started using the parental safe word. Cathy Weeks Before you buy.

Response:

Alex said: >It is rather >fancy to make two year old brush her teeth.

Lol. Have you ever smelled a toddler’s breath? It’s hardly *fancy*. It’s good dental/personal hygiene. Later, Sophie mom to Charlotte (2.4 yrs) and Patrick (1 yr on Thursday!)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Seems to me your issue is marital communication rather than parenting. You > try to communicate, he gets annoyed. It rather sounds like you are not > speaking to and hearing one another. Hard to come to a concensus in that > environment. If you "caught" him spanking her, that implies to me that the 2 > of you had previously agreed that that was not going to happen. If that is > the case, he is really disrespecting you and your opinions. > In light of this, marital counseling perhaps combined with parenting > classes, seems like a good idea to me. > Stephanie

We did agree on no physical punishment but I don’t think he meant to break his word. He just gets frustrated easily and doesn’t cope all that well. Actually I don’t think that will happen again after I was very angry last time. He does usually respect my opinions, he just doesn’t fully understand the impact of the way he acts. Gillian Before you buy.

Response:

> My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories

It is good idea to disregard theories when they are in your way. It seems they are. Authors of these theories aren’t responsible for your family. They don’t care about your happiness. The care only about serving sponsor’s agenda. > and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling.

So what? Don’t worry. It happens with the first child. Alredy with the second one your husband will get much more lazy and patient. And no matter what bookish politically correct propaganda says no child have yet died because of yellind. > A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad.

You have to be wise. The worst thing parents can do is to let child see their disagreement. It is worse that year long spanking. Child could grow "political", cuningly playing on your disagreements. What might be worse? > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath.

Respect to one’s parents is way more important than brushing one’s teeth, no matter what dental companies say in their advertisements. It is rather fancy to make two year old brush her teeth. But if you tell her not to throw blocks or not to splash and she immediately disobeys it begs for action. Not necessarily spanking. But why not after all? > I’ve tried telling him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet

She doesn’t need to understand that. It is enough to obey orders. > but he gets annoyed at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the > ideas

Are these ideas really worth it? > and we just end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each > other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship.

Forget it. As I’ve alredy wrote he will eventually get lazy and patient. He’ve got too much energy and devotion and too few children to accomodate it all. > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument

That is strange. Will your argument with your husband keep child on the sidewalk or off the wall? You have to go and catch child by the hand or take her off the wall WITHOUT arguing. If you’ve agreed not to argue in child’s presence he won’t argue. And if you are patient with his actions he will pay in kind. One argument that worked for my dad and for me is that being hit by a car only once is more than enough. Even if there is one chance per million you just have no right for error. (it is about running in the streets, not about spanking.) > but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s.

I think that is the purpose of all those "parenting books" you’ve read. They want to get parents out and bureaocrats and counselors of all sorts in. I’m pretty sure that is the main cause of school shootings and other unpleasant things. The system needs human dust, not connected by any kind of ties except free market. It needs people who care only about their wishes, whims and feelings. You, on the other hand, want your children to develop fully, freely in harmony with the world and the society into responsible mature human beings. The system wants to limit them to sex and shopping. You are on their way, and they publish "parenting book" to get you out of their way. > I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss.

That is clear. There is nothing more stupid than going to marriage counseling. There is just no reason why two adult people should entrust their life to the guy who is not responsible in any way for the effect of his suggestions, while you have the happiness of your entire family at stake. One really have to develop enough self-respect to treat these counselors with contempt they deserve. The same is true for "parenting books" and "theories" if they are in your way. Alex.

Response:

> We used to get a periodical called "Growing Child" which discussed > appropriate expectations, discipline, games and activities, etc. for > each age. It came once a month, a 6-page (I think) pamphlet geared to > your child’s age in months at the time. Since it was such a quick read > even a busy dad would have time to read it, and get some perspective on > what is appropriate for a child your child’s age. You might leave it > in the bathroom or somewhere where he is bound to stumble on it.

Thanks. That sounds like a good idea. Maybe a few written pages will help explain what I am constantly trying to but just don’t seem to get over. Gillian Before you buy.

Response:

Thanks Dorothy, that was helpful. I’ve read Faber & Mazlish and I like their ideas, but proactive comes much more naturally to me than to my husband who is more reactive by nature. In a way I think that is one of their flaws in that they assume that anyone can just change and behave differently and maybe this is unrealistic for some people. He agrees with the principles when we discuss them in calmer moments and we did talk about childrearing before we were even married, it is just putting the ideas into practice seems hard for him…… And your guess is right. His dad disciplined with a belt and although I told him before we had a child that I would never allow physical punishment (and he agreed), I think the influence of his experience is still there. He has no bad feelings towards his parents and doesn’t think what they did was so bad. He always thinks I am exagerating with the safety issues but I feel real concern because sometimes he gets distracted and doesn’t watch her very carefully or throws her about recklessly in play. I am so scared that if I don’t say anything something will happen and I don’t want to have an "I told you so" issue over this. Gillian Before you buy.

Response:

Seems to me your issue is marital communication rather than parenting. You try to communicate, he gets annoyed. It rather sounds like you are not speaking to and hearing one another. Hard to come to a concensus in that environment. If you "caught" him spanking her, that implies to me that the 2 of you had previously agreed that that was not going to happen. If that is the case, he is really disrespecting you and your opinions. In light of this, marital counseling perhaps combined with parenting classes, seems like a good idea to me. Stephanie

Response:

>He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read >nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent >confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or >yelling.

We used to get a periodical called "Growing Child" which discussed appropriate expectations, discipline, games and activities, etc. for each age. It came once a month, a 6-page (I think) pamphlet geared to your child’s age in months at the time. Since it was such a quick read even a busy dad would have time to read it, and get some perspective on what is appropriate for a child your child’s age. You might leave it in the bathroom or somewhere where he is bound to stumble on it. >Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a >really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or >get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his >wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we >never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school >or something. I’m really at a loss.

If he would attend a parenting class with you, that might help to put you both on the same page. Good luck! –Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and ??? due 3/01)

Response:

> Hi all,

Hi Ben!!!! How are ya old buddy? You should make a career out this ya Sarah – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and haven’t > seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? > What do you do when you disagree? > My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. I’ve tried telling him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet but he gets annoyed > at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the ideas and we just > end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss. > Gillian > Before you buy.

Response:

Hi, Gillian. See the post on positive parenting. Reposting it for you and others with the most recent revisions to it. >Hi all, >I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and haven’t >seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? >What do you do when you disagree?

I think there are bound to be disagreements unless you were unusually smart and discussed child-rearing before you married or before or during the pregnancy.. >My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I >have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting >theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non >spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read >nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent >confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or >yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it >wasn’t hard, it made me really mad.

You need to sit down at a time when there is no issue going on and talk about a common philosophy and about your expectations for children of this age. Certainly, imho, spanking a child especially if he is angry is not a good thing, but he has to learn techniques for dealing with his anger, appropriate expectations and other ways of dealing with toddlers. >Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth >when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he >gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her >blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath.

We often go with what our parents did to us. Have you spoken to him about how his own dad and mom disciplined him? >I’ve tried telling him alternative things to do and explaining that two >year olds don’t understand that splashing water makes the floor wet >but he gets annoyed at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the >ideas and we just end up arguing.

That’s why you need to approach this when you are both calm not when an incident is going on. Dads often feel criticized, btw, because mom’s imply that they have an instinct that dads don’t have. it’s the same principle with kids – if we tell them our way and seem not to accept theirs, they feel like they can’t do things right. >We have a deep and caring committment to each other, >but the constant tension is damaging our relationship.

I can understand that too. >Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a >really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or >get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his >wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we >never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school >or something. I’m really at a loss.

A couple of things here. If safety is in question, you have to sit down and talk about that too. But often dads and moms do have different perceptions about what a child can handle and how to keep them safe. Sometimes it may be all right to defer to his judgement when he is with your child. Is he watching the child and is he careful to be where he is needed. You may be seeing danger where there is none. So you may need to compromise on this *if* you can analyze your fear. I know that I had a different feeling about what my son was capable of then his dad did and usually the one who allowed him more risk was actually correct in seeing his capabilities. I will repost the positive parenting advice I usually give if you wish and perhaps you can print it out and use it as the basis for a discussion of what both of you are doing. Take from it only what resonates with you and use it as a beginning not a prescription. >Gillian

Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi all, > I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and haven’t > seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? > What do you do when you disagree? > My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I > have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting > theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non > spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read > nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent > confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or > yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it > wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. > Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth > when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he > gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her > blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. I’ve tried telling him > alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t > understand that splashing water makes the floor wet but he gets annoyed > at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the ideas and we just > end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each other, > but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. > Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a > really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or > get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his > wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we > never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school > or something. I’m really at a loss. > Gillian

Congrats, you married an impulsive child, so now you have two. Indicate to him that you will LEAVE his ass if he touches her again without asking! Steve

Response:

Hi all, I’m new to groups but I’ve been reading a lot of your posts and haven’t seen this subject come up. Do parents always agree about childrearing? What do you do when you disagree? My husband and I seem to be constantly fighting over this lately. I have read many parenting books, am familiar with different parenting theories and have firm convictions about a non confrontational and non spanking environment. He is a very devoted and loving dad, but has read nothing about parenting (no time) and has nonsensical and inconsistent confrontations with our 2 year old, which result in him snapping or yelling. A couple of times I have caught him spanking her and while it wasn’t hard, it made me really mad. Sometimes he panders to her whims, lets her go without brushing teeth when she makes a fuss, or go out in a t-shirt when it’s cold, then he gets angry with her when she does something natural like throw her blocks on the floor or splash a lot in the bath. I’ve tried telling him alternative things to do and explaining that two year olds don’t understand that splashing water makes the floor wet but he gets annoyed at the criticism, doesn’t listen or understand the ideas and we just end up arguing. We have a deep and caring committment to each other, but the constant tension is damaging our relationship. Then quite often he lets her run in the street near the road or climb a really high wall and I struggle over whether to keep my mouth shut or get into an argument but I feel like I have to chose between his wellbeing and my child’s. I’ve considered marriage counseling, but we never had any problems before kids so perhaps we need parenting school or something. I’m really at a loss. Gillian Before you buy.

Response:

Broken child

admin — Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

>Very nice – Problem though on what to do with them while they are rewiring >and how to help them and how to keep them to be executed or send to prison >for life to do their rewiring there. What contribution is prison going to do >to the "rewiring process"?

Our present penal system works virtually totally against any benefit to the individual. That it why I prefer a stronger sense of community that can be used to draw them (adults/parents) in, to help find the good in them burried under all of the abuses that they experienced in their lives. For kids, they need environments that reflect that community. See, we *all* have a fundimental need to fit in. It is only after we are convinced that we are broken/flawed/bad that we behave in that manner towards others. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> [trimmed headers] >abused. There are many wonderful, caring foster parents. There are also >those who should not be working with children at all. There are shades of >gray in between > This is equally true of parents in general, though. > As Free Spirit said, it might prove interesting to see the actuap > percentages of abusive parents in both foster care and among > general parents … although I wouldn’t expect there to be *that* > great of a difference because foster parents are selected from > the general population. > My parents were foster parents from the time that I was about 12. > Before I left home at 18, I got to know many of the other foster > parents in the area and found them to be pretty much at a typical > level of abusive as compared to the general population in the > area. > The screening process is not all that sevire. >treatment interventions over the long term. It is such a tragedy to see >these wonderful children who have been permanently damaged by their parent’s >addictions. > The damage is not perminent. The brain is not fixed, but is > plastic and is constantly making new connections. Even people > who have major brain injuries will usually accomplish rewiring of > their brains so that other areas will take on the functions that > were accomplished by the areas destroyed by the injuries. > Now, during the rewiring process, they dend to organize their > lives so that they do not need to deal with the injured areas. > This can lead to some pretty interesting behaviors — interesting > to those who are aware, bizarre or troublesome to those who are > less aware. > I would suggest that even abusive parents are going through some > of the same rewiring processes and are exhibiting, too, some > interesting behaviors. > *How* both will rewire depends, to a large extent, on the > environment in which they find themselves.

Very nice – Problem though on what to do with them while they are rewiring and how to help them and how to keep them to be executed or send to prison for life to do their rewiring there. What contribution is prison going to do to the "rewiring process"? Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia – The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Response:

[trimmed headers back to just aps] >That would explain why there are so many problems. The kids in foster care >had already problems in their lives – now they have a good chance to get >placed with a bad foster family. I thought they check the people out >thoroughly so they pick good parents who can give a good environment to >those kids.

In the US, there is some degree of cursory screening, but desparation to place kids in foster care often outweighs the ability to be selective. That’s one of the many reasons that I prefer to look at things along the lines of "community" to draw abusive parents in instead of further setting them appart. When they are drawn into a good, nurturing community, they are more prone to become more like the other members of the community and rediscover the good in themselves. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

[trimmed headers] >abused. There are many wonderful, caring foster parents. There are also >those who should not be working with children at all. There are shades of >gray in between

This is equally true of parents in general, though. As Free Spirit said, it might prove interesting to see the actuap percentages of abusive parents in both foster care and among general parents … although I wouldn’t expect there to be *that* great of a difference because foster parents are selected from the general population. My parents were foster parents from the time that I was about 12. Before I left home at 18, I got to know many of the other foster parents in the area and found them to be pretty much at a typical level of abusive as compared to the general population in the area. The screening process is not all that sevire. >treatment interventions over the long term. It is such a tragedy to see >these wonderful children who have been permanently damaged by their parent’s >addictions.

The damage is not perminent. The brain is not fixed, but is plastic and is constantly making new connections. Even people who have major brain injuries will usually accomplish rewiring of their brains so that other areas will take on the functions that were accomplished by the areas destroyed by the injuries. Now, during the rewiring process, they dend to organize their lives so that they do not need to deal with the injured areas. This can lead to some pretty interesting behaviors — interesting to those who are aware, bizarre or troublesome to those who are less aware. I would suggest that even abusive parents are going through some of the same rewiring processes and are exhibiting, too, some interesting behaviors. *How* both will rewire depends, to a large extent, on the environment in which they find themselves. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

Where I am, foster families are in shortage. No one wants to take on that burden, so I guess (supply vs. demand) the standards are lowered to allow other families to participate in the program. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I am posting this in both aac and aps. In aac for the issues and here > > because our kids will probably have to deal with those children sooner > or > > later. > > "Broken Child" is the title of an HBO special – to find out times when > it is > > on again go to > > http://www.hbo.com/homepages/cmp/docs.shtml#broken > > It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it > > seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking > > drugs/alcohol during pregnancy. > > Kids who were abandoned at birth, or taken away from their parents and > then > > placed in foster care. > > Kids who were subsequently often abused in foster care. (I would be > really > > interested on how many kids get abused in foster care and what and who > > qualifies people to become a foster parent) > Since I lived in a foster home, I may be able to help you on this one. > I was 16 years old and finally left home. Of course, children’s > services had to be involved. We went to court and all. I stayed with > my boyfriend and the court allowed his parents to become my foster > parents. The foster mother had psychological problems she took out on > me in the form of emotional abuse. My foster father was a good guy who > held her down when she went to hit me. I never actually got hit thanks > to him. All they had to do was fill out an application for children’s > services and they got a paycheck for having me there. The kicker is, > though, that my case worker was hard to come by. In the two years I > lived in foster care (the foster mother eventually threw me out on the > street), I saw my case worker twice outside of the six-month reviews in > court. I was doing well in school so they assumed nothing was wrong. > On another note, my half-brother’s mom ended up getting arrested on drug > charges with a filthy home, etc. Children services has been called on > her several times. While she was in jail, my brother lived with our > father (one of my abusers as a child…on all record too). So I find > out that children services is considering letting my brother live with > him, despite the sexual and physical abuse he inflicted on me. I called > them and told them that I didn’t think it would be in my brother’s best > interest to live with either parent. And it’s not. So what do they > do? Send him back to his junkie, filthy mother. Yay for children > services (sarcasm). An HBO documentary probably doesn’t even touch on > these things. > Sorry to hear about those problems. That show was in particular about cases > similar to yours. It only dealt with kids who where much younger (infant to > about 6). It did not go in detail into forster care. What struck me though > was that every case they reviewed had about the same story line that went > liket this > …. was born with problems because his mother was taking drugs/alcohol. > (S)he was taken away from his mother and placed into foster care. He was > with multiple foster families and was abused by some…. > Every one of those cases had "abused by foster family" in it. That is what > struck me. > That’s why I started asking questions about it. Up to now I assumed that you > had to be a damn special parent to be considered as foster parent. After all > you are supposed to fix the wrong that was done to a child. Guess I was > wrong – that’s what happens when you assume. > > Kids who never learned conflict resolving skills – who did not get any > love > > for a long time and therefore have none or poor social skills. > > Kids who for above reasons cannot control their temper and are violent > and > > are going to grow up to become violent adults > > Kids who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder because a sibling or > > parent(s) got their head blown off in front of them and have changed > > drastically since that incident. > > In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and > "Broken > > Adults". > > Kids who frequent our schools. > > Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected > > from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person > > either. But what to do with a person who has no control over > him/herself – > > who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right > to > > lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or > executing > > them. > > There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a > blind > > person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on > being > > rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I > want > > to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. > > At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above > people > > for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague > or > > Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules > might > > have been justified then as there was no other defense against > infection. > > We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot > control > > their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does > not > > seem to be any money for that. > > What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison > for > > 30+ years? > > We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except > > diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a > > booming prison industry. > > Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the > > pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. > > Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! > > — > > Free Spirit > > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Free Spirit > > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom. > Looks like it would have been an interesting programme to watch. I’m in > NZ > so didn’t see it. I think the problems are similar the world over. Its > difficult to try to work out the solution. One of the things you > mentioned/asked was "what qualifications are needed to be a foster parent" > I can tell you now that we have a boarder/foster teenager living with us, > a > girl who is 16. She has had some rough things happen to her. Anyway, she > gets an independant youth allowance of NZ$120 a week, and pays us NZ$75 a > week in board. She chose the amount I would have been happy with $60. > Anyway to the point. The welfare people checked that she was in fact > staying with us, and the school that she attends is the same as the school > my children attend, so we are known to the school. But nobody from the > welfare authority checked us out at all. We could have been anybody as > far > as they were concerned. > Annemarie > That would explain why there are so many problems. The kids in foster care > had already problems in their lives – now they have a good chance to get > placed with a bad foster family. I thought they check the people out > thoroughly so they pick good parents who can give a good environment to > those kids. > — > Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Well in New Zealand for over 16 year olds they do not, the 16 year old does the choosing. For under 16 year olds they do have a screening programme, but I have no idea how extensive it is. Annemarie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sorry to hear about those problems. That show was in particular about cases > similar to yours. It only dealt with kids who where much younger (infant to > about 6). It did not go in detail into forster care. What struck me though > was that every case they reviewed had about the same story line that went > liket this > …. was born with problems because his mother was taking drugs/alcohol. > (S)he was taken away from his mother and placed into foster care. He was > with multiple foster families and was abused by some…. > Every one of those cases had "abused by foster family" in it. That is what > struck me. > That’s why I started asking questions about it. Up to now I assumed that you > had to be a damn special parent to be considered as foster parent. After all > you are supposed to fix the wrong that was done to a child. Guess I was > wrong – that’s what happens when you assume.

I am sure that they picked those cases in order to present a certain Point of view, perhaps including a slant that children in foster care can become abused. There are many wonderful, caring foster parents. There are also those who should not be working with children at all. There are shades of gray in between like many families in Florida where there is a severe shortage of families as opposed to children needing placement. If you were licensed for four children but had 11 placed with you and several of them were presenting you with acting out problems would you be able to care appropriately for them all? I doubt that I could, but I doubt that I could be a foster parent, so I’m not going there. In just about any news story there is more information than presented in the limited venue offered, be it print, audio or video media. The presenter has certain biases, the story has one or more points which they wish to make to the audience "market" in the limited time frame given, and the hearer also has their own biases and may miss parts of the information presented. I used to watch documentaries and information shows like 60 minutes and 20/20. Eventually I became more able to recognize those biases and information gaps and grew increasingly cynical about the ability of the media to fairly and totally present the full picture on an item so that the listener could develop an informed opinion. I now rarely watch them due to my increased dissatisfaction. There is a great deal more to foster care than apparently was presented in the show you saw. There is a great deal about children who were exposed to drugs in utero. They have very poor impulse control, are often developmentally delayed [read: retarded], & many are given to fits of rage which are unpredictable and are often not seen coming at all. These children become increasingly challenging to provide an adequate and safe home environment for as they grow and pass through various developmental stages. They express their drug exposure in different ways, depending on which part[s] of the brain were effected by the drugs. I have yet to see two children born crack exposed who presented with the same cluster of problems, although they can be similar. I personally think that these crack exposed children are more difficult to deal with effectively than even those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder as they respond so poorly to most treatment interventions over the long term. It is such a tragedy to see these wonderful children who have been permanently damaged by their parent’s addictions. They seem to have such little chance of real success and fulfillment in life. -Aula

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sorry to hear about those problems. That show was in particular about > cases > similar to yours. It only dealt with kids who where much younger (infant > to > about 6). It did not go in detail into forster care. What struck me though > was that every case they reviewed had about the same story line that went > liket this > …. was born with problems because his mother was taking drugs/alcohol. > (S)he was taken away from his mother and placed into foster care. He was > with multiple foster families and was abused by some…. > Every one of those cases had "abused by foster family" in it. That is what > struck me. > That’s why I started asking questions about it. Up to now I assumed that > you > had to be a damn special parent to be considered as foster parent. After > all > you are supposed to fix the wrong that was done to a child. Guess I was > wrong – that’s what happens when you assume. > I am sure that they picked those cases in order to present a certain Point > of view, perhaps including a slant that children in foster care can become > abused.

If it was then very subliminal. They never said that foster care was bad only that each of the kids were abused in foster care. I understand that there always are some rotten apples. Just want to know if there are a few rotten apples in a good barrel or if tha barrel is rotten with a few good apples. Any statistics anyone in the line of. xx% of parents abuse their kids, yy% of foster parents abuse foster kids. That would be intersting to see if the system is helping or adding to the damage. Without numbers like that all you can do is guess. There are many wonderful, caring foster parents. There are also > those who should not be working with children at all. There are shades of > gray in between like many families in Florida where there is a severe > shortage of families as opposed to children needing placement. If you were > licensed for four children but had 11 placed with you and several of them > were presenting you with acting out problems would you be able to care > appropriately for them all? I doubt that I could, but I doubt that I could > be a foster parent, so I’m not going there.

So any ideas on how to fix that problem. The only way I could care for 11 kids is quit working and do nothing but take care of the kids. Kind of running a day and night care center. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In just about any news story there is more information than presented in the > limited venue offered, be it print, audio or video media. The presenter has > certain biases, the story has one or more points which they wish to make to > the audience "market" in the limited time frame given, and the hearer also > has their own biases and may miss parts of the information presented. I > used to watch documentaries and information shows like 60 minutes and 20/20. > Eventually I became more able to recognize those biases and information gaps > and grew increasingly cynical about the ability of the media to fairly and > totally present the full picture on an item so that the listener could > develop an informed opinion. I now rarely watch them due to my increased > dissatisfaction.

Agree with you on that – found that to be true too. Watch tv rarely myself and when then usualy docomentaries like the Learning or Discovery Channel, Some HBO "under cover" 60 minutes and 20/20 rarely. Dennis Miller every friday. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is a great deal more to foster care than apparently was presented in > the show you saw. There is a great deal about children who were exposed to > drugs in utero. They have very poor impulse control, are often > developmentally delayed [read: retarded], & many are given to fits of rage > which are unpredictable and are often not seen coming at all. These > children become increasingly challenging to provide an adequate and safe > home environment for as they grow and pass through various developmental > stages. They express their drug exposure in different ways, depending on > which part[s] of the brain were effected by the drugs. I have yet to see > two children born crack exposed who presented with the same cluster of > problems, although they can be similar. I personally think that these crack > exposed children are more difficult to deal with effectively than even those > with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder as they respond so poorly to most > treatment interventions over the long term. It is such a tragedy to see > these wonderful children who have been permanently damaged by their parent’s > addictions. They seem to have such little chance of real success and > fulfillment in life.

That is exactly what that special was about. It also said that those kids most likely will wind up in jail. Does not seem right to me to put someone in a place like jail where there is no chance for improving if (s)he never had a chance. Or even worse execute them. > -Aula

– Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.>

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am posting this in both aac and aps. In aac for the issues and here > because our kids will probably have to deal with those children sooner or > later. > "Broken Child" is the title of an HBO special – to find out times when it is > on again go to > http://www.hbo.com/homepages/cmp/docs.shtml#broken > It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it > seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking > drugs/alcohol during pregnancy. > Kids who were abandoned at birth, or taken away from their parents and then > placed in foster care. > Kids who were subsequently often abused in foster care. (I would be really > interested on how many kids get abused in foster care and what and who > qualifies people to become a foster parent)

Since I lived in a foster home, I may be able to help you on this one. I was 16 years old and finally left home. Of course, children’s services had to be involved. We went to court and all. I stayed with my boyfriend and the court allowed his parents to become my foster parents. The foster mother had psychological problems she took out on me in the form of emotional abuse. My foster father was a good guy who held her down when she went to hit me. I never actually got hit thanks to him. All they had to do was fill out an application for children’s services and they got a paycheck for having me there. The kicker is, though, that my case worker was hard to come by. In the two years I lived in foster care (the foster mother eventually threw me out on the street), I saw my case worker twice outside of the six-month reviews in court. I was doing well in school so they assumed nothing was wrong. On another note, my half-brother’s mom ended up getting arrested on drug charges with a filthy home, etc. Children services has been called on her several times. While she was in jail, my brother lived with our father (one of my abusers as a child…on all record too). So I find out that children services is considering letting my brother live with him, despite the sexual and physical abuse he inflicted on me. I called them and told them that I didn’t think it would be in my brother’s best interest to live with either parent. And it’s not. So what do they do? Send him back to his junkie, filthy mother. Yay for children services (sarcasm). An HBO documentary probably doesn’t even touch on these things. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Kids who never learned conflict resolving skills – who did not get any love > for a long time and therefore have none or poor social skills. > Kids who for above reasons cannot control their temper and are violent and > are going to grow up to become violent adults > Kids who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder because a sibling or > parent(s) got their head blown off in front of them and have changed > drastically since that incident. > In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and "Broken > Adults". > Kids who frequent our schools. > Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected > from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person > either. But what to do with a person who has no control over him/herself – > who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right to > lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or executing > them. > There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a blind > person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on being > rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I want > to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. > At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above people > for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague or > Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules might > have been justified then as there was no other defense against infection. > We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot control > their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does not > seem to be any money for that. > What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison for > 30+ years? > We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except > diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a > booming prison industry. > Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the > pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. > Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! > — > Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Response:

> Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Looks like it would have been an interesting programme to watch. I’m in NZ so didn’t see it. I think the problems are similar the world over. Its difficult to try to work out the solution. One of the things you mentioned/asked was "what qualifications are needed to be a foster parent" I can tell you now that we have a boarder/foster teenager living with us, a girl who is 16. She has had some rough things happen to her. Anyway, she gets an independant youth allowance of NZ$120 a week, and pays us NZ$75 a week in board. She chose the amount I would have been happy with $60. Anyway to the point. The welfare people checked that she was in fact staying with us, and the school that she attends is the same as the school my children attend, so we are known to the school. But nobody from the welfare authority checked us out at all. We could have been anybody as far as they were concerned. Annemarie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom. > Looks like it would have been an interesting programme to watch. I’m in NZ > so didn’t see it. I think the problems are similar the world over. Its > difficult to try to work out the solution. One of the things you > mentioned/asked was "what qualifications are needed to be a foster parent" > I can tell you now that we have a boarder/foster teenager living with us, a > girl who is 16. She has had some rough things happen to her. Anyway, she > gets an independant youth allowance of NZ$120 a week, and pays us NZ$75 a > week in board. She chose the amount I would have been happy with $60. > Anyway to the point. The welfare people checked that she was in fact > staying with us, and the school that she attends is the same as the school > my children attend, so we are known to the school. But nobody from the > welfare authority checked us out at all. We could have been anybody as far > as they were concerned. > Annemarie

That would explain why there are so many problems. The kids in foster care had already problems in their lives – now they have a good chance to get placed with a bad foster family. I thought they check the people out thoroughly so they pick good parents who can give a good environment to those kids. — Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am posting this in both aac and aps. In aac for the issues and here > because our kids will probably have to deal with those children sooner or > later. > "Broken Child" is the title of an HBO special – to find out times when it is > on again go to > http://www.hbo.com/homepages/cmp/docs.shtml#broken > It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it > seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking > drugs/alcohol during pregnancy. > Kids who were abandoned at birth, or taken away from their parents and then > placed in foster care. > Kids who were subsequently often abused in foster care. (I would be really > interested on how many kids get abused in foster care and what and who > qualifies people to become a foster parent) > Since I lived in a foster home, I may be able to help you on this one. > I was 16 years old and finally left home. Of course, children’s > services had to be involved. We went to court and all. I stayed with > my boyfriend and the court allowed his parents to become my foster > parents. The foster mother had psychological problems she took out on > me in the form of emotional abuse. My foster father was a good guy who > held her down when she went to hit me. I never actually got hit thanks > to him. All they had to do was fill out an application for children’s > services and they got a paycheck for having me there. The kicker is, > though, that my case worker was hard to come by. In the two years I > lived in foster care (the foster mother eventually threw me out on the > street), I saw my case worker twice outside of the six-month reviews in > court. I was doing well in school so they assumed nothing was wrong. > On another note, my half-brother’s mom ended up getting arrested on drug > charges with a filthy home, etc. Children services has been called on > her several times. While she was in jail, my brother lived with our > father (one of my abusers as a child…on all record too). So I find > out that children services is considering letting my brother live with > him, despite the sexual and physical abuse he inflicted on me. I called > them and told them that I didn’t think it would be in my brother’s best > interest to live with either parent. And it’s not. So what do they > do? Send him back to his junkie, filthy mother. Yay for children > services (sarcasm). An HBO documentary probably doesn’t even touch on > these things.

Sorry to hear about those problems. That show was in particular about cases similar to yours. It only dealt with kids who where much younger (infant to about 6). It did not go in detail into forster care. What struck me though was that every case they reviewed had about the same story line that went liket this …. was born with problems because his mother was taking drugs/alcohol. (S)he was taken away from his mother and placed into foster care. He was with multiple foster families and was abused by some…. Every one of those cases had "abused by foster family" in it. That is what struck me. That’s why I started asking questions about it. Up to now I assumed that you had to be a damn special parent to be considered as foster parent. After all you are supposed to fix the wrong that was done to a child. Guess I was wrong – that’s what happens when you assume. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Kids who never learned conflict resolving skills – who did not get any love > for a long time and therefore have none or poor social skills. > Kids who for above reasons cannot control their temper and are violent and > are going to grow up to become violent adults > Kids who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder because a sibling or > parent(s) got their head blown off in front of them and have changed > drastically since that incident. > In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and "Broken > Adults". > Kids who frequent our schools. > Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected > from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person > either. But what to do with a person who has no control over him/herself – > who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right to > lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or executing > them. > There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a blind > person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on being > rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I want > to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. > At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above people > for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague or > Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules might > have been justified then as there was no other defense against infection. > We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot control > their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does not > seem to be any money for that. > What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison for > 30+ years? > We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except > diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a > booming prison industry. > Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the > pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. > Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! > — > Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Free Spirit > > > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > > > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom. > > Looks like it would have been an interesting programme to watch. I’m in > NZ > > so didn’t see it. I think the problems are similar the world over. Its > > difficult to try to work out the solution. One of the things you > > mentioned/asked was "what qualifications are needed to be a foster > parent" > > I can tell you now that we have a boarder/foster teenager living with > us, > a > > girl who is 16. She has had some rough things happen to her. Anyway, > she > > gets an independant youth allowance of NZ$120 a week, and pays us NZ$75 > a > > week in board. She chose the amount I would have been happy with $60. > > Anyway to the point. The welfare people checked that she was in fact > > staying with us, and the school that she attends is the same as the > school > > my children attend, so we are known to the school. But nobody from the > > welfare authority checked us out at all. We could have been anybody as > far > > as they were concerned. > > Annemarie > That would explain why there are so many problems. The kids in foster care > had already problems in their lives – now they have a good chance to get > placed with a bad foster family. I thought they check the people out > thoroughly so they pick good parents who can give a good environment to > those kids. > — > Free Spirit > Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom > First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom. > Well in New Zealand for over 16 year olds they do not, the 16 year old does > the choosing. For under 16 year olds they do have a screening programme, > but I have no idea how extensive it is. > Annemarie

Thank you

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it > seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking > drugs/alcohol during pregnancy. > <> > In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and > "Broken > Adults". > Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected > from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person > either. But what to do with a person who has no control over him/herself – > who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right to > lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or > executing > them. > There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a blind > person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on > being > rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I > want > to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. > At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above people > for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague or > Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules might > have been justified then as there was no other defense against infection. > We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot > control > their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does not > seem to be any money for that. > What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison > for > 30+ years? > We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except > diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a > booming prison industry. > Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the > pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. > Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! > — > I appreciate you mentioning this show to us. I rarely watch TV any more > and would have missed it [might, anyway, if I forget]. I work with these > kids and understand the frustrations, concerns, etc., that you are > expressing. I get so frustrated when yet another crack baby is referred to > us because they have no impulse control and so on. Gee, what a surprise. > What a surprise that they are in Foster Care, too, and that no one is > stepping forward to adopt them. Well, I’m getting towards one of my soap > boxes and I will back away because I really had a different reason for > responding to your post.

May I ask where you are working? > You mention that there are no efforts at prevention. I can share with you > that, in the US, there are a number of programs working to prevent child > abuse of very young children, enhance parenting skills of parents who are > identified as at risk to abuse, and diminish the number of at risk births. > These programs include Healthy Start [mainly for pregnant women] and a > program which apparently has different names around the country but is > called Healthy Families in Florida. Healthy Families is in about 30 states > now and was started in Hawaii. This program works with women giving birth > in areas where there are statistically higher incidents of abuse reports. > The family support workers are in the family home sometimes up through the > child’s fifth birthday, teaching parenting skills from baby washing to > consistent limit setting, etc. The program has reportedly earned a very > high abuse prevention rate, but I can’t recall the percentages off hand.

Why just in areas of high percentage of abuse? Why not everywhere? I do not think that those programs go far enough. I also think that more could be done to avoid those problems in the first place. The whole attitude towards drugs should be rethought. The whole war on drugs is not working. I am not for drugs or alcohol. You won’t get a beer in my house. I do not buy it. But I do not believe in treating drugs as a crime. The only way you will reduce the use of drugs is by taking the profit out of it. Take the money out of drugs and you will stop the spread of drugs. Give existing drug addicts the drugs the need for free and give them an incentive to reduce their usage. No adict would have to push drugs on other people and kids no more to "support the habit" nor would she have to steal or prostitute. Give them free medical treatment for their drug problem and treat it as a decease. The APA has classified now drug abuse as a chronic mental disorder – treat it as such. This should reduce drug related violence and the availability of drugs. The reason why kids can buy drugs easily is – because there is a lof of profit in selling them. Regarding programs for pregnant woman with or without problems. As you know I grew up in Austria. I do not want to claim that I am an expert on how things are there now – but I know very well how they were when we grew up. Just shortly for those who do not know. Austria is a democratic republic similar to the US with basically the some government structure and a similar constitution. The main differences in the constitution are that we do not have the right to bear arms – therefore whe have the right to an education – any education you are capable and willing of achieving and the right to health care. Children are considered very important. Abortion rules are pretty much the same. If you decide to have the baby you are to follow some rules. You have to go to well baby check ups during the pregnancy. Those are free. If you fail to go you do not get the "baby money" that you get at the time of birth. Furthermore you can get in trouble with Social Services for child abuse for not going to the check ups. If you are taking drugs during the pregnancy your unborn baby will be hospitalized to be treated. That means you have to go along. That were the rules. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You also raise a very serious concern in that our children will have to deal > with these "broken" children. I hate to think of my young son having to do > so, but life is not likely to change that. We also had to learn how to do > so, as have previous generations, although our broken children may well have > been the mentally ill and the developmentally delayed more than those whom > you describe. But, each generation has members who are socially misfit, who > have not been parented as well as they ought, who did not have an even > chance from birth due to conditions with which they were born. Each > generation develops their own ways of dealing, often based on those > preceding them. The treatment of the mentally ill has improved over the > last 50 years, although there is a great deal that could still be done [and > I hope will be done]. The treatment of the developmentally disabled is > another discussion and I am not certain that their treatment has improved, > but merely changed, depending on the disability.

I know that there always will be "misfits" and that we have to deal with them. I just think we are not doing a good job at it. We concentrate too much on punishing than on resolving the problem. Punishing a blind man for being blind does not resolve anything. Giving him a cane and teaching him how to live with his problem – now you are talking. Now that it becomes more and more evident that the brains of a lot of carier criminals work differently (They can prove that with MRI) we should focus on finding remedies. Our lock up and execute policies just don’t seem to do the trick. How many con’s come out of prison reformed and how many are worse? we all know the statistic. > The raw numbers of children who have not been taught appropriate anger > management, impulse control skills, or were drug exposed in utero, is > probably much higher than when I was a child some 40 years ago. The drain > on society’s resources is thereby that much greater. We seem to expect, as > a society, that the government will solve these problems, too, which places > a great burden on "others" to solve what are actually in effect "our" > problems, and we complain about the amount we have to pay in taxes to fund > these programs. These children are "our" problem, not the government’s. > We, as a society, need to find ways to assist pre-parents in developing the > best parenting techniques around, supporting those who end up in challenging > parenting situations,

Heard from my nephews in austria they are having mandatory parenting classes in highschool now as part of social and citizen ed (don’t know if I translate that right. This is the class where you learn the laws, the political system, what is considered acceptable in the society and now parenting too including diaper changing etc) ? and be ready with a more rapid response to those who > violate the rules. How many juveniles would change their choices if the > legal consequences were close enough in time for them to stop feeling like > they are "getting away" with stuff? I don’t know, but I believe that more > immediate consequences would go quite a way to improving the impulse control > and anger management of a significant number of individuals.

What kind of response do you have in mind? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> While there > are mental illnesses that compromise an individual’s ability to effectively > control impulses [which can include anger management], not all individuals > who appear to have problems with those areas require medication in order to > control the condition. Many of them simply need to learn new behavioral > patterns and problem solving skills and need to understand that they do not > like the consequences of having poor impulse control and anger

Response:

I am posting this in both aac and aps. In aac for the issues and here because our kids will probably have to deal with those children sooner or later. "Broken Child" is the title of an HBO special – to find out times when it is on again go to http://www.hbo.com/homepages/cmp/docs.shtml#broken It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking drugs/alcohol during pregnancy. Kids who were abandoned at birth, or taken away from their parents and then placed in foster care. Kids who were subsequently often abused in foster care. (I would be really interested on how many kids get abused in foster care and what and who qualifies people to become a foster parent) Kids who never learned conflict resolving skills – who did not get any love for a long time and therefore have none or poor social skills. Kids who for above reasons cannot control their temper and are violent and are going to grow up to become violent adults Kids who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder because a sibling or parent(s) got their head blown off in front of them and have changed drastically since that incident. In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and "Broken Adults". Kids who frequent our schools. Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person either. But what to do with a person who has no control over him/herself – who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right to lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or executing them. There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a blind person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on being rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I want to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above people for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague or Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules might have been justified then as there was no other defense against infection. We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot control their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does not seem to be any money for that. What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison for 30+ years? We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a booming prison industry. Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! — Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.

Response:

> It showed quite a few kids who never had and never will have a chance it > seems. Kids who’s brains were basically fried due to mom taking > drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

<> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In other words "Broken Children". who will become "Broken Teens" and "Broken > Adults". > Do not get me wrong – I do believe that society deserves to be protected > from individual. I do not want to live next door to a homicidal person > either. But what to do with a person who has no control over him/herself – > who’s brain does not work like the "average persons" brain. Is it right to > lock them up like animals for a period of time with no results or executing > them. > There are other people with disabilities. I would not want to have a blind > person driving a cab or flying the plane I am on or having to rely on being > rescued from a burning building by a paralyzed firefighter, nor would I want > to come in contact with a person infected with a deadly virus. > At the same time I would not promote the necessity to execute above people > for their disabilities and infections. People infected with the plague or > Leper used to get shot when they got to near to town and those rules might > have been justified then as there was no other defense against infection. > We are still doing the same in a way to kids/teens/adult who cannot control > their violence. We are also not doing much for prevention. There does not > seem to be any money for that. > What is cheaper? Taking care right of kids or keeping someone in prison for > 30+ years? > We are "fighting the war on drugs" for decades with no results. Except > diminishing freedom for everyone and fat bank accounts for lawyers and a > booming prison industry. > Is it not time to figure out a new way and approach to deal with the > pestilence of society – violence – drugs – executions. > Our kids will have to live in the society we leave them! > —

I appreciate you mentioning this show to us. I rarely watch TV any more and would have missed it [might, anyway, if I forget]. I work with these kids and understand the frustrations, concerns, etc., that you are expressing. I get so frustrated when yet another crack baby is referred to us because they have no impulse control and so on. Gee, what a surprise. What a surprise that they are in Foster Care, too, and that no one is stepping forward to adopt them. Well, I’m getting towards one of my soap boxes and I will back away because I really had a different reason for responding to your post. You mention that there are no efforts at prevention. I can share with you that, in the US, there are a number of programs working to prevent child abuse of very young children, enhance parenting skills of parents who are identified as at risk to abuse, and diminish the number of at risk births. These programs include Healthy Start [mainly for pregnant women] and a program which apparently has different names around the country but is called Healthy Families in Florida. Healthy Families is in about 30 states now and was started in Hawaii. This program works with women giving birth in areas where there are statistically higher incidents of abuse reports. The family support workers are in the family home sometimes up through the child’s fifth birthday, teaching parenting skills from baby washing to consistent limit setting, etc. The program has reportedly earned a very high abuse prevention rate, but I can’t recall the percentages off hand. You also raise a very serious concern in that our children will have to deal with these "broken" children. I hate to think of my young son having to do so, but life is not likely to change that. We also had to learn how to do so, as have previous generations, although our broken children may well have been the mentally ill and the developmentally delayed more than those whom you describe. But, each generation has members who are socially misfit, who have not been parented as well as they ought, who did not have an even chance from birth due to conditions with which they were born. Each generation develops their own ways of dealing, often based on those preceding them. The treatment of the mentally ill has improved over the last 50 years, although there is a great deal that could still be done [and I hope will be done]. The treatment of the developmentally disabled is another discussion and I am not certain that their treatment has improved, but merely changed, depending on the disability. The raw numbers of children who have not been taught appropriate anger management, impulse control skills, or were drug exposed in utero, is probably much higher than when I was a child some 40 years ago. The drain on society’s resources is thereby that much greater. We seem to expect, as a society, that the government will solve these problems, too, which places a great burden on "others" to solve what are actually in effect "our" problems, and we complain about the amount we have to pay in taxes to fund these programs. These children are "our" problem, not the government’s. We, as a society, need to find ways to assist pre-parents in developing the best parenting techniques around, supporting those who end up in challenging parenting situations, and be ready with a more rapid response to those who violate the rules. How many juveniles would change their choices if the legal consequences were close enough in time for them to stop feeling like they are "getting away" with stuff? I don’t know, but I believe that more immediate consequences would go quite a way to improving the impulse control and anger management of a significant number of individuals. While there are mental illnesses that compromise an individual’s ability to effectively control impulses [which can include anger management], not all individuals who appear to have problems with those areas require medication in order to control the condition. Many of them simply need to learn new behavioral patterns and problem solving skills and need to understand that they do not like the consequences of having poor impulse control and anger management skills. I fear I am starting to ramble due to the lateness of the hour clouding my ability to think straight. I am looking forward to reading others’ rthoguhts. -Aula

Response:

[Fwd: Raising Children to Resist Violence: What You Can Do]

admin — Mon, 01 May 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> >You would think that in all this you said I could find at least one thing >to disagree with you on but on substance I can’t. Since I hate to leave it >at that and not be the asshole that I worked hard at to become I will say I >do not like the way your post is formatted. > hehehe… You are funny Dana.

I told you that I agreed with you too much and in that statement above I have to also agree. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown

– "Some have brains, and some haven’t," Pooh says, "and there it is."

Response:

You would think that in all this you said I could find at least one thing to disagree with you on but on substance I can’t. Since I hate to leave it at that and not be the asshole that I worked hard at to become I will say I do not like the way your post is formatted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > While the thrust of this article seems to offer some suggestions, > I have some real problems with some of the suggestions it offers > to parents because it seems to place the blame for violence on > guns and media in some instances. Comments individually on some > of this below. I think that the warning signs listed must be taken > with a grain of salt also, since kids may exhibit some of them > without actually having a violence problem. Taken together they > may indicate a need for consultation, but any one in isolation might > just be an indication of a child who is angry and needs to vent or > who happens to like horror stories. YMMV, imo. > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline > Newsgroups: alt.activism.children > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > NNTP-Posting-Host: news1.uncensored-news.com > Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups. > Path: > news.alt.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!londen1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei > .net!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfe > eds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nexus.news.chello.be!news.tvd.be!feed.news > feeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news.planetc.com!traffic.uncensored-news.com!ne > ws1.uncensored-news.com!news1.uncensored-news.com > Xref: news alt.activism.children:72064 > Raising Children to Resist Violence: What You Can Do > —– > —- > Research has shown that violent or aggressive behavior is often > learned early in life. However, parents, family members, and > others who care for children can help them learn to deal with > emotions without using violence. Parents and others can also > take steps to reduce or minimize violence. > Agreed that the key is learned violence early in life. > This brochure is designed to help parents work within the family, > school, and community to prevent and reduce youth violence. > Suggestions for Dealing With Children > Parents play a valuable role in reducing violence by raising > children in safe and loving homes. Here are suggestions that > can help. You may not be able to follow each one exactly, but > if you do your best, it will make a difference in your children’s > lives. > Give your children consistent love and attention > Again agreed. This is the most important thing a parent can > do and it’s not easy given how stressed parents are these days. > One thing this brochure doesn’t mention is that parents must > take care of themselves in order to give their children what > they need. So parents need time alone, time together as adults > and good time with their children if this is to work. > Every child needs a strong, loving, relationship with a parent > or other adult to feel safe and secure and to develop a sense > of trust. Without a steady bond to a caring adult, a child is > at risk for becoming hostile, difficult, and hard to manage. > Behavior problems and delinquency are less likely to develop in > children whose parents are involved in their lives, especially > at an early age. > It’s not easy to show love to a child all the time. It can be even > harder if you are a young, inexperienced, or single parent, or if > your child is sick or has special needs. If your baby seems > unusually difficult to care for and comfort, discuss this with > your child’s pediatrician, another physician, a psychologist, > or a counselor. He or she can give you advice and direct you > to local parenting classes that teach positive ways to handle the > difficulties of raising children. > It is important to remember that children have minds of their own. > Children’s increasing independence sometimes leads them to behave > in ways that disappoint, anger, or frustrate you. Patience and a > willingness to view the situation through the children’s eyes, > before reacting, can help you deal with your emotions. Do your > best to avoid responding to your children with hostile words or > actions. > This also is good, but it needs some specific expansion, imo. > First, look at children’s behavior as showing their needs and > realize that children want to please you. Kids are not trying > to get to you when they do things you dislike. They may be > exploring the world which is necessary for cognitive development > or they may be expressing their anger or pain or frustration > in the only way they know how. Think of *mis*behavior as teachable > moments instead of as behaviors that must be forcibly changed. > Make sure your children are supervised > Children depend on their parents and family members for > encouragement, protection, and support as they learn to think > for themselves. Without proper supervision, children do not > receive the guidance they need. Studies report that unsupervised > children often have behavior problems. > We also must not over-supevise, though. > While I think it is important to know where your children are > and what they are doing, I also think kids need down time and > private spaces away from adults if they are to get to know their > own feelings and dreams. > Insist on knowing where your children are at all times and who > their friends are. When you are unable to watch your children, > ask someone you trust to watch them for you. Never leave young > children home alone, even for a short time. > Agreed that kids must have access to adult help and so leaving them > at home alone is a bad idea. Still they do not have to be in the > same room with adults all the time. They do have to know that an > adult is available immediately if they need help. > Encourage your school-aged and older children to participate in > supervised after-school activities such as sports teams, tutoring > programs, or organized recreation. Enroll them in local community > programs, especially those run by adults whose values you respect. > Again, while this is ok, we tend to overprogram our children today. > I would be careful not to overstimulate the kids by having them > always in planned activities. Kids need time to be *bored.* It’s > good for their creativity. And kids need alone time, just as adults > do. When they are always in groups, they can’t *hear* their own > thinking. > Accompany your children to supervised play activities and watch how > they get along with others. Teach your children how to respond > appropriately when others use insults or threats or deal with > anger by hitting. Explain to your children that these are not > appropriate behaviors, and encourage them to avoid other children > who behave that way. > Yes, teach conflict resolution and problem solving whenever the > opportunity presents itself. Role play situations where conflict > might arise with your kids so they have a whole repetoire of > good responses they have practice in using. > Show your children appropriate behaviors by the way you act > Children often learn by example. The behavior, values, and > attitudes of parents and siblings have a strong influence on > children. Values of respect, honesty, and pride in your family > and heritage can be important sources of strength for children, > especially if they are confronted with negative peer pressure, > live in a violent neighborhood, or attend a rough school. > Often, more like always. Children learn what they live, so > parents must model any behavior they want their children to > learn. If you want your kids to settle conflict peacefully, then > show them how by settling conflicts between you and your spouse > or you and your friends. > Most children sometimes act aggressively and may hit another > person. Be firm with your children about the possible dangers of > violent behavior. Remember also to praise your children when > they solve problems constructively without violence. Children > are more likely to repeat good behaviors when they are > rewarded with attention and praise. > You can teach your children nonaggressive ways to solve problems by: > Discussing problems with them, > Asking them to consider what might happen if they use violence to > solve problems, and > Talking about what might happen if they solve problems without > violence. > This kind of ‘thinking out loud’ together will help children see > that violence is not a helpful solution. > All of the above are good suggestions, imho. > Parents sometimes encourage aggressive behavior without knowing > it. For example, some parents think it is good for a boy to > learn to fight. Teach your children that it is better to settle > arguments with calm words, not fists, threats, or weapons. > Help your children learn constructive, nonviolent ways to enjoy > their free time. Teach them your

Response:

[ Attached Message ]

To: Local:

Ping Dana, Toto – and another one Raising Children to Resist Violence: What You Can Do —- Research has shown that violent or aggressive behavior is often learned early in life. However, parents, family members, and others who care for children can help them learn to deal with emotions without using violence. Parents and others can also take steps to reduce or minimize violence. This brochure is designed to help parents work within the family, school, and community to prevent and reduce youth violence. Suggestions for Dealing With Children Parents play a valuable role in reducing violence by raising children in safe and loving homes. Here are suggestions that can help. You may not be able to follow each one exactly, but if you do your best, it will make a difference in your children’s lives. Give your children consistent love and attention Every child needs a strong, loving, relationship with a parent or other adult to feel safe and secure and to develop a sense of trust. Without a steady bond to a caring adult, a child is at risk for becoming hostile, difficult, and hard to manage. Behavior problems and delinquency are less likely to develop in children whose parents are involved in their lives, especially at an early age. It’s not easy to show love to a child all the time. It can be even harder if you are a young, inexperienced, or single parent, or if your child is sick or has special needs. If your baby seems unusually difficult to care for and comfort, discuss this with your child’s pediatrician, another physician, a psychologist, or a counselor. He or she can give you advice and direct you to local parenting classes that teach positive ways to handle the difficulties of raising children. It is important to remember that children have minds of their own. Children’s increasing independence sometimes leads them to behave in ways that disappoint, anger, or frustrate you. Patience and a willingness to view the situation through the children’s eyes, before reacting, can help you deal with your emotions. Do your best to avoid responding to your children with hostile words or actions. Make sure your children are supervised Children depend on their parents and family members for encouragement, protection, and support as they learn to think for themselves. Without proper supervision, children do not receive the guidance they need. Studies report that unsupervised children often have behavior problems. Insist on knowing where your children are at all times and who their friends are. When you are unable to watch your children, ask someone you trust to watch them for you. Never leave young children home alone, even for a short time. Encourage your school-aged and older children to participate in supervised after-school activities such as sports teams, tutoring programs, or organized recreation. Enroll them in local community programs, especially those run by adults whose values you respect. Accompany your children to supervised play activities and watch how they get along with others. Teach your children how to respond appropriately when others use insults or threats or deal with anger by hitting. Explain to your children that these are not appropriate behaviors, and encourage them to avoid other children who behave that way. Show your children appropriate behaviors by the way you act Children often learn by example. The behavior, values, and attitudes of parents and siblings have a strong influence on children. Values of respect, honesty, and pride in your family and heritage can be important sources of strength for children, especially if they are confronted with negative peer pressure, live in a violent neighborhood, or attend a rough school. Most children sometimes act aggressively and may hit another person. Be firm with your children about the possible dangers of violent behavior. Remember also to praise your children when they solve problems constructively without violence. Children are more likely to repeat good behaviors when they are rewarded with attention and praise. You can teach your children nonaggressive ways to solve problems by: Discussing problems with them, Asking them to consider what might happen if they use violence to solve problems, and Talking about what might happen if they solve problems without violence. This kind of ‘thinking out loud’ together will help children see that violence is not a helpful solution. Parents sometimes encourage aggressive behavior without knowing it. For example, some parents think it is good for a boy to learn to fight. Teach your children that it is better to settle arguments with calm words, not fists, threats, or weapons. Help your children learn constructive, nonviolent ways to enjoy their free time. Teach them your favorite games, hobbies, or sports, and help them develop their own talents and skills. Read stories to younger children, take older children to the library, or tell family stories about admired relatives who have made the world a better place. Don’t hit your children Hitting, slapping, or spanking children as punishment shows them that it’s okay to hit others to solve problems and can train them to punish others in the same way they were punished. Physical punishments stop unwanted behavior only for a short time. Even with very harsh punishment, children may adapt so that it has little or no effect. Using even more punishment is equally ineffective. Nonphysical methods of discipline help children deal with their emotions and teach them nonviolent ways to solve problems. Here are some suggestions: Giving children ‘time out’ — making the children sit quietly, usually 1 minute for each year of age (this is not appropriate for very young children), Taking away certain privileges or treats, ‘Grounding’ — not allowing the children to play with friends or participate in school or community activities (this is only appropriate for older children or adolescents). Punishment that involves taking away privileges or ‘grounding’ should be consistently applied for realistic, brief periods. Children need to feel that if they make mistakes, they can correct them. Show them how to learn from their errors. Help them figure out what they did wrong and how they can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. It is especially important not to embarrass or humiliate your child at these times. Children always need to feel your love and respect. A positive approach to changing behaviors is to emphasize rewards for good behavior instead of punishments for bad behavior. Remember that praise and affection are the best rewards. Be consistent about rules and discipline When you make a rule, stick to it. Children need structure with clear expectations for their behavior. Setting rules and then not enforcing them is confusing and sets up children to ’see what they can get away with.’ Parents should involve children in setting rules whenever possible. Explain to your children what you expect, and the consequences for not following the rules. This will help them learn to behave in ways that are good for them and for those around them. Make sure your children do not have access to guns Guns and children can be a deadly combination. Teach your children about the dangers of firearms or other weapons if you own and use them. If you keep a gun in your home, unload it and lock it up separately from the bullets. Never store firearms where children can find them, even if unloaded. Don’t carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems. Try to keep your children from seeing violence in the home or community. Violence in the home can be frightening and harmful to children. Children need a safe and loving home where they do not have to grow up in fear. A child who has seen violence at home does not always become violent, but he or she may be more likely to try to resolve conflicts with violence. Work toward making home a safe, nonviolent place, and always discourage violent behavior between brothers and sisters. Keep in mind as well that hostile, aggressive arguments between parents frighten children and set a bad example for them. If the people in your home physically or verbally hurt and abuse each other, get help from a psychologist or counselor in your community. He or she will help you and your family understand why violence at home occurs and how to stop it. Sometimes children cannot avoid seeing violence in the street, at school, or at home, and they may need help in dealing with these frightening experiences. A psychologist or counselor at school or a religious leader are among those who can help them cope with their feelings. Try to keep your children from seeing too much violence in the media Seeing a lot of violence on television, in the movies, and in video games can lead children to behave aggressively. As a parent, you can control the amount of violence your children see in the media. Here are some ideas: Limit television viewing time to 1 to 2 hours a day. Make sure you know what TV shows your children watch, which movies they see, and what kinds of video games they play. Talk to your children about the violence that they see on TV shows, in the movies, and in video games. Help them understand how painful it would be in real life and the serious consequences for violent behaviors. Discuss with them ways to solve problems without violence. Teach your children ways to avoid becoming victims of violence It is important that you and your children learn to take precautions against becoming the victims of a violent crime. Here are some important steps that you can take to keep yourself and your children safe: Teach your children safe routes for walking in your neighborhood Encourage them to walk with a friend at all times and only in well-lighted, busy areas. Stress how … read more »

Response:

While the thrust of this article seems to offer some suggestions, I have some real problems with some of the suggestions it offers to parents because it seems to place the blame for violence on guns and media in some instances. Comments individually on some of this below. I think that the warning signs listed must be taken with a grain of salt also, since kids may exhibit some of them without actually having a violence problem. Taken together they may indicate a need for consultation, but any one in isolation might just be an indication of a child who is angry and needs to vent or who happens to like horror stories. YMMV, imo. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline > Newsgroups: alt.activism.children > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > NNTP-Posting-Host: news1.uncensored-news.com > Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups. > Path:

news.alt.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!londen1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei .net!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfe eds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nexus.news.chello.be!news.tvd.be!feed.news feeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news.planetc.com!traffic.uncensored-news.com!ne ws1.uncensored-news.com!news1.uncensored-news.com > Xref: news alt.activism.children:72064 > Raising Children to Resist Violence: What You Can Do

—– > —- > Research has shown that violent or aggressive behavior is often > learned early in life. However, parents, family members, and > others who care for children can help them learn to deal with > emotions without using violence. Parents and others can also > take steps to reduce or minimize violence.

Agreed that the key is learned violence early in life. > This brochure is designed to help parents work within the family, > school, and community to prevent and reduce youth violence. > Suggestions for Dealing With Children > Parents play a valuable role in reducing violence by raising > children in safe and loving homes. Here are suggestions that > can help. You may not be able to follow each one exactly, but > if you do your best, it will make a difference in your children’s > lives. > Give your children consistent love and attention

Again agreed. This is the most important thing a parent can do and it’s not easy given how stressed parents are these days. One thing this brochure doesn’t mention is that parents must take care of themselves in order to give their children what they need. So parents need time alone, time together as adults and good time with their children if this is to work. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Every child needs a strong, loving, relationship with a parent > or other adult to feel safe and secure and to develop a sense > of trust. Without a steady bond to a caring adult, a child is > at risk for becoming hostile, difficult, and hard to manage. > Behavior problems and delinquency are less likely to develop in > children whose parents are involved in their lives, especially > at an early age. > It’s not easy to show love to a child all the time. It can be even > harder if you are a young, inexperienced, or single parent, or if > your child is sick or has special needs. If your baby seems > unusually difficult to care for and comfort, discuss this with > your child’s pediatrician, another physician, a psychologist, > or a counselor. He or she can give you advice and direct you > to local parenting classes that teach positive ways to handle the > difficulties of raising children. > It is important to remember that children have minds of their own. > Children’s increasing independence sometimes leads them to behave > in ways that disappoint, anger, or frustrate you. Patience and a > willingness to view the situation through the children’s eyes, > before reacting, can help you deal with your emotions. Do your > best to avoid responding to your children with hostile words or > actions.

This also is good, but it needs some specific expansion, imo. First, look at children’s behavior as showing their needs and realize that children want to please you. Kids are not trying to get to you when they do things you dislike. They may be exploring the world which is necessary for cognitive development or they may be expressing their anger or pain or frustration in the only way they know how. Think of *mis*behavior as teachable moments instead of as behaviors that must be forcibly changed. > Make sure your children are supervised > Children depend on their parents and family members for > encouragement, protection, and support as they learn to think > for themselves. Without proper supervision, children do not > receive the guidance they need. Studies report that unsupervised > children often have behavior problems.

We also must not over-supevise, though. While I think it is important to know where your children are and what they are doing, I also think kids need down time and private spaces away from adults if they are to get to know their own feelings and dreams. > Insist on knowing where your children are at all times and who > their friends are. When you are unable to watch your children, > ask someone you trust to watch them for you. Never leave young > children home alone, even for a short time.

Agreed that kids must have access to adult help and so leaving them at home alone is a bad idea. Still they do not have to be in the same room with adults all the time. They do have to know that an adult is available immediately if they need help. > Encourage your school-aged and older children to participate in > supervised after-school activities such as sports teams, tutoring > programs, or organized recreation. Enroll them in local community > programs, especially those run by adults whose values you respect.

Again, while this is ok, we tend to overprogram our children today. I would be careful not to overstimulate the kids by having them always in planned activities. Kids need time to be *bored.* It’s good for their creativity. And kids need alone time, just as adults do. When they are always in groups, they can’t *hear* their own thinking. > Accompany your children to supervised play activities and watch how > they get along with others. Teach your children how to respond > appropriately when others use insults or threats or deal with > anger by hitting. Explain to your children that these are not > appropriate behaviors, and encourage them to avoid other children > who behave that way.

Yes, teach conflict resolution and problem solving whenever the opportunity presents itself. Role play situations where conflict might arise with your kids so they have a whole repetoire of good responses they have practice in using. > Show your children appropriate behaviors by the way you act > Children often learn by example. The behavior, values, and > attitudes of parents and siblings have a strong influence on > children. Values of respect, honesty, and pride in your family > and heritage can be important sources of strength for children, > especially if they are confronted with negative peer pressure, > live in a violent neighborhood, or attend a rough school.

Often, more like always. Children learn what they live, so parents must model any behavior they want their children to learn. If you want your kids to settle conflict peacefully, then show them how by settling conflicts between you and your spouse or you and your friends. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Most children sometimes act aggressively and may hit another > person. Be firm with your children about the possible dangers of > violent behavior. Remember also to praise your children when > they solve problems constructively without violence. Children > are more likely to repeat good behaviors when they are > rewarded with attention and praise. > You can teach your children nonaggressive ways to solve problems by: > Discussing problems with them, > Asking them to consider what might happen if they use violence to > solve problems, and > Talking about what might happen if they solve problems without > violence. > This kind of ‘thinking out loud’ together will help children see > that violence is not a helpful solution.

All of the above are good suggestions, imho. > Parents sometimes encourage aggressive behavior without knowing > it. For example, some parents think it is good for a boy to > learn to fight. Teach your children that it is better to settle > arguments with calm words, not fists, threats, or weapons. > Help your children learn constructive, nonviolent ways to enjoy > their free time. Teach them your favorite games, hobbies, or > sports, and help them develop their own talents and skills. > Read stories to younger children, take older children to the > library, or tell family stories about admired relatives who > have made the world a better place.

Also read stories where people settle conflicts peacefully and where character traits you want to encourage are exhibited by the characters in the story. Encourage empathy for others when you read stories by asking children how they think the characters feel about what happened. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Don’t hit your children > Hitting, slapping, or spanking children as punishment shows > them that it’s okay to hit others to solve problems and can

Response:

Preschool Menace – The (long) Update & a Vent

admin — Sat, 04 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

It’s ironic that you should reply to this now, as it has been on my mind again lately. My boys are adjusting to life without PreS just fine, although I must truthfully admit that I miss those few free hours each month. Anyway, I watched T.B.Brazelton on the satelite yesterday and the topic was JD boys (Juv. Delinquents). They discussed normal male aggresive behavior, fathers roles, early intervention for problem kids, etc. It was a bit frightening to hear another doc talk about very early warning signs, some of which this child displayed. I also had thoughts about that Sensory problem. I did finally make an anonymous call to Health Services yesterday, just to get some info – I didn’t tell them who I was or who I was calling about. Anyway, I was told that they will screen automatically on entering K, which is 2 years away. They said I could call CPS if I thought the boy was in danger, but I really don’t have any knowledge of this and I am hesitant to release the CPS wolves if it’s not called for. Her comment about the Dad was third or fourth hand to me and she has already reneged on other comments she has made. I think I will just keep in touch with my friends in the school and keep an ear to the ground and see what develops. It’s also kinda funny (well, maybe not), but the teacher firmly thinks that I pulled my kids because she refused to expel the little boy – absolutely false! – she has no clue that it was her own behaviors that caused my action!! Oh well, live and learn!!

Response:

>It’s ironic that you should reply to this now, as it has been on my mind >again lately. My boys are adjusting to life without PreS just fine, although >I must truthfully admit that I miss those few free hours each month. Anyway, >I watched T.B.Brazelton on the satelite yesterday and the topic was JD boys >(Juv. Delinquents). They discussed normal male aggresive behavior, fathers >roles, early intervention for problem kids, etc. It was a bit frightening >to hear another doc talk about very early warning signs, some of which this >child displayed.

Yeah, it is scary. > I also had thoughts about that Sensory problem. I did >finally make an anonymous call to Health Services yesterday, just to get >some info – I didn’t tell them who I was or who I was calling about. >Anyway, I was told that they will screen automatically on entering K, which >is 2 years away.

If you have any contact with the mother, perhaps you can suggest that she read something? Or one of the other moms who is friendly with her can? The Out of Sync Child by Carol Stock Kranowitz is a start. It could be that this mom is frightened and doesn’t know what to do herself. If she is approachable in friendship, maybe that would be the best intervention anyone could take. > They said I could call CPS if I thought the boy was in >danger, but I really don’t have any knowledge of this and I am hesitant to >release the CPS wolves if it’s not called for. Her comment about the Dad >was third or fourth hand to me and she has already reneged on other comments >she has made.

Yes, I agree. I wouldn’t wish a CPS investigation on anyone since I know too many cases where they don’t help. And certainly since you have no direct knowledge, hearsay isn’t a good reason to get the government involved in this. > I think I will just keep in touch with my friends in the >school and keep an ear to the ground and see what develops. It’s also kinda >funny (well, maybe not), but the teacher firmly thinks that I pulled my kids >because she refused to expel the little boy – absolutely false! – she has no >clue that it was her own behaviors that caused my action!! Oh well, live >and learn!!

Good luck. This little boy has my sympathy and you have my admiration for the way in which you handled this. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

You aren’t kidding. I too work in childcare and cannot imagine taking any animosity toward a parent our on a child. If you cannot separate the child from his parents in your heart, you shouldn’t be teaching at all, imo. Dorothy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->More than anything else, the two comments below would make me pull my >children. I work in child care, and I have had many parents I didn’t like, >but I have *never* NEVER taken it out on the kids! That is unprofessional >and to me, uncomprehensible. Anyone capable of treating a child like that >should not be working with children! >Tara P > After that, things went from bad to worse. The teacher was noticably cool > to my sons when we left preschool that day. On >When the meeting was over, the > teacher basically ignored my boys as we were leaving (the kids play with a > sitter in another room of the building during the meetings) and just went > off into her own little world. They kept trying to say goodbye to her and > she would not acknowledge them – I didn’t want to push it so we just left. > I did see her pull child "a’s" mom aside, and they were talking when I >left.

There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

>As a new parent, I am surprised by how this situation played out. We will >probably be homeschooling our kids, for educational reasons, but I can now >imagine how hard it is for good parents to go up against a bureacracy like a >school system. This teacher didn’t seem to understand that the whole >purpose of the co-op was to be directly involved, and she really resented >our interference even on behalf of our kids. In a regular school setting, I >could imagine the control issues being magnified and it is potentially >frightening. Well, thanks for all of your good advice on this issue last >week. I really wish it could have turned out better but my boys are doing >just fine!!

Wow, this is really hard and all I can say is you did your very best only to be slapped down. One possible thing I got from what you said about the boys behavior, I cannot obviously diagnose from one snippet over the internet, but the sensifivity to noise along with some of the other behaviors you noted may be an indication of Sensory Integration Disorder. If anyone does intervene, this is another possibility to check. While this is actually relatively new as a diagnosis, treatment involves occupational therapy (strange name for somethng to do with a four year old, but that’s the name). This involves working with the child to better integrate his sensory input allowing him to learn ways to cope. It’s a neurological wiring disorder, but there are no medicines that treat it. Hope that this little boy does get real help because he does need it and soon. >STRANGE SIDEBAR: The teacher, all along, has been talking about child "A"’s >home being "Unsafe" and school was his only "safe" place. Since this issue >has been raised, she mentioned to another mother (THIS IS TOTAL HEARSAY!!) >that she doesn’t want to say anything to the mother because if the mother >tells the father, he will beat the boy!! That, supposedly, is why she is >being so protective of this child, who is not yet 4 years old. Now keep in >mind, this is total Gossip at this point, I did NOT hear this comment, but >it seems that, if this is true, wouldn’t she have an even more Urgent need >to bring this family to professional help???

If she does have any suspicion, she is mandated to report such a thing to the child-protective-services and if she doesn’t do so, she is in violation of both law and her contract if this center is licensed. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

More than anything else, the two comments below would make me pull my children. I work in child care, and I have had many parents I didn’t like, but I have *never* NEVER taken it out on the kids! That is unprofessional and to me, uncomprehensible. Anyone capable of treating a child like that should not be working with children! Tara P

> After that, things went from bad to worse. The teacher was noticably cool > to my sons when we left preschool that day. On

When the meeting was over, the > teacher basically ignored my boys as we were leaving (the kids play with a > sitter in another room of the building during the meetings) and just went > off into her own little world. They kept trying to say goodbye to her and > she would not acknowledge them – I didn’t want to push it so we just left. > I did see her pull child "a’s" mom aside, and they were talking when I

left.

Response:

I agree completely. Regardless of the situation with Child "A" (as long as there was no more physical contact) I had no intention of pulling my boys out until I witnessed her behavior toward my boys. I could care less what she thinks of me, but my sons are very aware (aren’t all kids!) of people’s feelings and I didn’t want them to pick up any negativity directed toward them. It’s sad, but as DH says, every change happens for a good reason!

Response:

Thanks Annemarie! This group has been very supportive through this. We live in the boonies, so adult interaction is sometimes hard to come by, especially in wide variety of opinions!! It’s rather interesting now that the boys have spent some time in school, we are filling the calendar in their room with a special event each week (zoo, kids museum, etc.) and we will add activities that support that event. I’m really beginning to look forward to the next 6 months before the other school starts. Also, the feeling of peace from our decision is abundant – I know we did the right thing! Thanks again, L

Response:

I think you are 100% right Jaquie. In addition, I think that a co-op school would be the most difficult to run, because you need such strong people skills to handle the parents and be a diplomat in tough situations. I had originally thought I would like this job as a career, but I think now that I will stick to my class of two, at least until they are well grown and no longer need my full attention!! Then maybe I’ll take another look. Thanks, L

Response:

Twinmom – I believe teachers, doctors, healthcare workers, social workers are all under legal obligation to report suspicion of child abuse. jen

Response:

> Twinmom – > I believe teachers, doctors, healthcare workers, social workers are all > under legal obligation to report suspicion of child abuse. > jen

I was thinking the same. At least that is true in every state I have lived in in the US – and it is the "suspicion" of child abuse. You don’t have to be sure before you are legally obligated to report it if you are in one of the above professions.

Response:

You have been through a very difficult time. I am in some ways not supprised at the outcome. I suggested approaching the teacher as a group, because I wondered about the effect of sticking your neck out on your own too much. Should have warned you I guess (sorry) I think that in the long run having your boys away from this teacher is preferable though, she sounds completely unprofessional to me and appears to have a huge inferiority complex, or she would not have reacted so defensively. Don’t give up on the school systems completely though. I’m sure its the same there as here in New Zealand, There are some really terrible teachers, but there are also some very wonderful teachers, that bring such richness to our childrens lives. Thats my experience anyway. Goodluck for the future. Annemarie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well, I took the good advice of most of the folks who responded and spoke to > the teacher, not as the representative of a group, but as a single concerned > parent. I had discussed this with my friend (from before preschool) who is > also a parent there and we thought that it might make her defensive to "gang > up" on her, so I would try to open the door to discussion and get a feel for > her level of awareness of the problem. I went in very early last Tuesday, > on my official workday, to give us a chance to discuss this without other > parents or kids around. Well, things didn’t go very well, to put it mildly. > I told her about Ian’s bloody nose, and both my sons nightmares and pretend > play fending off this boy, their comments to their Ped. etc. The teacher > claimed to not see any big problem and got Extremely defensive about even > speaking to the parents about some of his behaviors. It went from bad to > worse, with the teacher going to great lengths to "protect" this child, at > least in her mind. Personally, I don’t think it’s protecting him, I think it > is doing him more harm, especially if his behaviors have any biological > causes like ADD, ADHD, epilespy, audio nerve problems, ‘jeez the potential > list is huge. She stuck to her POV that she could solve it all with > behavioral modifications. (For those who missed the original post, this is > the teacher’s First Class in her career, so there is a lack of experience in > dealing with these situations.) She even mentioned that she had been > discussing this child at length with a colleague, well versed in behavior > disorders, who offered to sit in on the class and observe him anonymously – > she even refused that help. I just don’t get it. I Never asked her to > remove this child from the school, I just wanted the parents and somebody > else to be aware that there is a problem that needs looking in to. My > greatest fear, and I shared this with the teacher, was that he would spend > the summer months with NO support system of any kind and come back in > September bigger, stronger and meaner – and I Would pull my boys at that > point. Anyway, the morning did not go well, with the teacher continuing to > interject comments in her defense (in front of the children!) at the start > of the class. As is happened, I ended up spending quite a bit of time with > the child in question at the beginning of the day. What I saw was kind of > interesting. He and I started out sitting on the floor doing some color > sorting work. He was attentive, polite, communicative, even sweet – just a > regular kid. We were having such a nice little time together. Then the room > noise (ambient) got louder as more kids arrived (there are only 10 in the > class) and he got more agitated and distracted. Finally, he stood up and > literally vibrated from his shoulders up – his hands were at his ears, but > not touching them and he just sort of shivered violently for about 5-6 > seconds, mumbling incoherently and then he took off – physically and > mentally – he ran off, shouting about Medusa (?) and some other stuff I > couldn’t make out. We weren’t able to get his attention back for a while > after that. I looked at the teacher and mouthed "What was THAT?" and she > just shrugged. I’m not an expert, but it really looked like a little > seizure of some sort! I’ve heard before from parents whose kids were > suspect for ADD and it turned out to be this Auditory Nerve thing, where it > gets overstimulated and the signals don’t process well. It’s just a > maturity thing – they grow out of it pretty soon and a little sound therapy > helps, it’s just the nerve hasn’t grown as fast as the body (or something > like that). Anyway, it confirmed (in my mind) that this child needs some > sort of professional evaluation, even if it’s just a REALLY thorough exam by > his Ped! > After that, things went from bad to worse. The teacher was noticably cool > to my sons when we left preschool that day. On the way home, I stopped at > the other co-op program and picked up applications for next year. I > described a hypothetical situation to this other instructor to see how they > would handle it. I was very calmed to hear that they had the tools needed > to help not only the child, if it is biological, but the parents, if it is > behavioral. There are mandatory parenting classes and a resource of > counselors, etc through the college to help identify problems. Basically, I > was leaning toward changing schools in Sept at this point. I also spoke to > my friend about my unsuccessful conversation with the teacher. We decided > to bring the matter up at the Board Meeting the next night and we both > informed the Pres of the Board that we would be discussing the matter, not > just of this child, but the general procedures for handling children that > were out of control. > Well, if things could go from worse to worser, they did at the meeting! > When the Pres brought up the subject, she did it without mentioning names > and wanted to discuss the procedures – were their any in place and how > should they be implimented. Immediately the teacher jumped on me for > bringing this to the Board about child "A". Fortunately, my friend is also > on the board and came to my defense, telling the teacher that it was not > just me, but that I had volunteered to be the "mouthpiece" instead of having > all the moms gang up. The whole discussion was heated and not pleasant. > The teacher finally agreed to discuss his behavior with his parents, but > only because we "bullied her" into it. She again claimed to be unaware of > any real problem and had never taken any notes on any of the problems, (the > hitting, the aggression, the verbal disruptions). Basically, this child can > NOT be left within reach of any other child without Constant eyes on > supervision. You just cannot turn your back to even help another child > because he will use that opportunity to hurt someone. I brought up the > little temor thing the past morning and she had no response. The other mom > reminded her that they had had an impromptu meeting just a month earlier, > when the other three moms approached the teacher after class one day. Child > "A" had been sick that day and they were commenting on the peace in the > classroom. The parents had gone into great detail with her and the teacher > had Promised, at that time, to discuss his behavior with the parents. > Nothing was ever said to them, and now it was a month later and nothing was > getting better. When the Board meeting was over, all the other parents > arrived for the regular monthly meeting and the teacher just pouted through > the whole meeting, making it very obvious to everyone that she was not > happy. My friend was so upset with the events that she left as soon as the > business was done, before the speaker started. (This woman is very reserved > and it takes A LOT to make her that upset!) When the meeting was over, the > teacher basically ignored my boys as we were leaving (the kids play with a > sitter in another room of the building during the meetings) and just went > off into her own little world. They kept trying to say goodbye to her and > she would not acknowledge them – I didn’t want to push it so we just left. > I did see her pull child "a’s" mom aside, and they were talking when I left. > DH and I discussed this until midnight that night and we decided to pull the > boys out of the preschool. It really has very little to do with child "A" > at this point. All we ever asked is to have his parents made aware that his > behavior was causing a problem for the other kids. Believe it or not, we (I > anyway) really wanted to get this kid some help – he obviously needs > something!! The main reason we pulled the boys is that the teacher’s > attitude was just not right. In trying to protect our kids, we became the > enemy, and the teacher was completely unable to control her feelings toward > us around our own kids. The comments to me in the classroom, her obvious > coolness when the boys were leaving the class and later at the meeting. She > is still making comments to the other class’s Moms as of yesterday, trying > to start discussion about the issue and generate some support for her views. > We just decided it was silly to pay $400 for three more months of potential > problems. The Board supports my advocacy of my own children and understands > our desire to pull out. On the other side of the coin, the teacher now > refuses to renew her contract and will also not be back next year (she said > she would walk now if she could). With no teacher, there may very well be > no next year for that little preschool. It’s sad, but it’s out of my hands > now. The Board did ask me to consider returning to the Board next year, and > hiring a new teacher of our own choosing, but DH & I decided we did not need > to take on a project like this. It probably sounds selfish, but we don’t > think it’s our job to "save the school". We did NOT tell the

Response:

Although my kids aren’t in a pre-school or anything yet I think you have acted in the best possible way. My initial thoughts are that because this is the first contract of the teacher’s she is too afraid to ask for help in case they think she isn’t capable due to her inexperience. I wish you all the best. — Jaquie, Mom to Hollie & Harry "My purse may be empty of cash, but my heart’s full of love"

Response:

Well, I took the good advice of most of the folks who responded and spoke to the teacher, not as the representative of a group, but as a single concerned parent. I had discussed this with my friend (from before preschool) who is also a parent there and we thought that it might make her defensive to "gang up" on her, so I would try to open the door to discussion and get a feel for her level of awareness of the problem. I went in very early last Tuesday, on my official workday, to give us a chance to discuss this without other parents or kids around. Well, things didn’t go very well, to put it mildly. I told her about Ian’s bloody nose, and both my sons nightmares and pretend play fending off this boy, their comments to their Ped. etc. The teacher claimed to not see any big problem and got Extremely defensive about even speaking to the parents about some of his behaviors. It went from bad to worse, with the teacher going to great lengths to "protect" this child, at least in her mind. Personally, I don’t think it’s protecting him, I think it is doing him more harm, especially if his behaviors have any biological causes like ADD, ADHD, epilespy, audio nerve problems, ‘jeez the potential list is huge. She stuck to her POV that she could solve it all with behavioral modifications. (For those who missed the original post, this is the teacher’s First Class in her career, so there is a lack of experience in dealing with these situations.) She even mentioned that she had been discussing this child at length with a colleague, well versed in behavior disorders, who offered to sit in on the class and observe him anonymously – she even refused that help. I just don’t get it. I Never asked her to remove this child from the school, I just wanted the parents and somebody else to be aware that there is a problem that needs looking in to. My greatest fear, and I shared this with the teacher, was that he would spend the summer months with NO support system of any kind and come back in September bigger, stronger and meaner – and I Would pull my boys at that point. Anyway, the morning did not go well, with the teacher continuing to interject comments in her defense (in front of the children!) at the start of the class. As is happened, I ended up spending quite a bit of time with the child in question at the beginning of the day. What I saw was kind of interesting. He and I started out sitting on the floor doing some color sorting work. He was attentive, polite, communicative, even sweet – just a regular kid. We were having such a nice little time together. Then the room noise (ambient) got louder as more kids arrived (there are only 10 in the class) and he got more agitated and distracted. Finally, he stood up and literally vibrated from his shoulders up – his hands were at his ears, but not touching them and he just sort of shivered violently for about 5-6 seconds, mumbling incoherently and then he took off – physically and mentally – he ran off, shouting about Medusa (?) and some other stuff I couldn’t make out. We weren’t able to get his attention back for a while after that. I looked at the teacher and mouthed "What was THAT?" and she just shrugged. I’m not an expert, but it really looked like a little seizure of some sort! I’ve heard before from parents whose kids were suspect for ADD and it turned out to be this Auditory Nerve thing, where it gets overstimulated and the signals don’t process well. It’s just a maturity thing – they grow out of it pretty soon and a little sound therapy helps, it’s just the nerve hasn’t grown as fast as the body (or something like that). Anyway, it confirmed (in my mind) that this child needs some sort of professional evaluation, even if it’s just a REALLY thorough exam by his Ped! After that, things went from bad to worse. The teacher was noticably cool to my sons when we left preschool that day. On the way home, I stopped at the other co-op program and picked up applications for next year. I described a hypothetical situation to this other instructor to see how they would handle it. I was very calmed to hear that they had the tools needed to help not only the child, if it is biological, but the parents, if it is behavioral. There are mandatory parenting classes and a resource of counselors, etc through the college to help identify problems. Basically, I was leaning toward changing schools in Sept at this point. I also spoke to my friend about my unsuccessful conversation with the teacher. We decided to bring the matter up at the Board Meeting the next night and we both informed the Pres of the Board that we would be discussing the matter, not just of this child, but the general procedures for handling children that were out of control. Well, if things could go from worse to worser, they did at the meeting! When the Pres brought up the subject, she did it without mentioning names and wanted to discuss the procedures – were their any in place and how should they be implimented. Immediately the teacher jumped on me for bringing this to the Board about child "A". Fortunately, my friend is also on the board and came to my defense, telling the teacher that it was not just me, but that I had volunteered to be the "mouthpiece" instead of having all the moms gang up. The whole discussion was heated and not pleasant. The teacher finally agreed to discuss his behavior with his parents, but only because we "bullied her" into it. She again claimed to be unaware of any real problem and had never taken any notes on any of the problems, (the hitting, the aggression, the verbal disruptions). Basically, this child can NOT be left within reach of any other child without Constant eyes on supervision. You just cannot turn your back to even help another child because he will use that opportunity to hurt someone. I brought up the little temor thing the past morning and she had no response. The other mom reminded her that they had had an impromptu meeting just a month earlier, when the other three moms approached the teacher after class one day. Child "A" had been sick that day and they were commenting on the peace in the classroom. The parents had gone into great detail with her and the teacher had Promised, at that time, to discuss his behavior with the parents. Nothing was ever said to them, and now it was a month later and nothing was getting better. When the Board meeting was over, all the other parents arrived for the regular monthly meeting and the teacher just pouted through the whole meeting, making it very obvious to everyone that she was not happy. My friend was so upset with the events that she left as soon as the business was done, before the speaker started. (This woman is very reserved and it takes A LOT to make her that upset!) When the meeting was over, the teacher basically ignored my boys as we were leaving (the kids play with a sitter in another room of the building during the meetings) and just went off into her own little world. They kept trying to say goodbye to her and she would not acknowledge them – I didn’t want to push it so we just left. I did see her pull child "a’s" mom aside, and they were talking when I left. DH and I discussed this until midnight that night and we decided to pull the boys out of the preschool. It really has very little to do with child "A" at this point. All we ever asked is to have his parents made aware that his behavior was causing a problem for the other kids. Believe it or not, we (I anyway) really wanted to get this kid some help – he obviously needs something!! The main reason we pulled the boys is that the teacher’s attitude was just not right. In trying to protect our kids, we became the enemy, and the teacher was completely unable to control her feelings toward us around our own kids. The comments to me in the classroom, her obvious coolness when the boys were leaving the class and later at the meeting. She is still making comments to the other class’s Moms as of yesterday, trying to start discussion about the issue and generate some support for her views. We just decided it was silly to pay $400 for three more months of potential problems. The Board supports my advocacy of my own children and understands our desire to pull out. On the other side of the coin, the teacher now refuses to renew her contract and will also not be back next year (she said she would walk now if she could). With no teacher, there may very well be no next year for that little preschool. It’s sad, but it’s out of my hands now. The Board did ask me to consider returning to the Board next year, and hiring a new teacher of our own choosing, but DH & I decided we did not need to take on a project like this. It probably sounds selfish, but we don’t think it’s our job to "save the school". We did NOT tell the boys anything about the situation, we simply told them that school was over and they would have a new school in September. They are taking it in stride. (Interestingly, they have not mentioned child "A" since we told them school was over. Before that, he seemed to be a daily visitor in their minds.) I will miss my 3 or 4 mornings each month of time to myself, but that’s just the way it goes. We are going to spend this month’s tuition on some preschool song books and I will use the teacher’s methods of bringing new subjects to the boys until next Sept. Our first big one will be lizards, then next month we’re going to discover tide pools. As a new parent, I am surprised by how this situation played out. We will probably be homeschooling our kids, for educational reasons, but I can now imagine how hard it is for good parents to go up against a bureacracy like a school system. This teacher didn’t seem to understand that the whole purpose of the co-op was to be directly involved, and she really resented our interference even on behalf of our kids. In a regular school setting, I could imagine the control issues being … read more »

Response:

Preschool Menace – Advice Please.

admin — Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Hi! I think you are all in a very difficult situation. The co-op obviously started with very good intentions, but now you have hit a problem any you don’t have the systems set up to deal with it. In the UK, we have similar groups with heavy parental involvement. However, we are all supported by ‘umbrella groups’ who provide training and advice, and we all have policies and guidelines to work by. We work to the same standard as private nurseries. This is vital. If you are working in isolation you have to re-invent the wheel! The solution to your problem exists, but you seem to be trying to work it out from first principles. It really isn’t healthy to have a group of parents trying to decide how to deal with this child. Every child needs a level of confidentiality around their education. (Just think how it might be in ten years time, when he is doing well in school. All the parents involved in the co-op will still view him as ‘that disturbed, sociopathic kid. That’s not fair.) You ned to be led by a highly trained worker who is well supported. I also feel concerned that the parents who speak little English seem to be sidelined. It should be the teacher’s responsibility to make all parents feel equally involved. He possibly is just a rather immature child, but he needs firm boundaries, and skilled teaching. If the teacher can’t provide that she either needs extra training, someone else to help her or to ask the parents to try a different setting. She has not given you the confidence that she can manage the situation, so probably she can’t. One trained worker is not enough for the group – there needs to be a staff group to support each other. Perhaps one of the parents could train? I hope you find some help. Bear in mind that this problem is going to arise time and time again – children like this are not particularly unusual. Kay – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I need some input from the "been there, done that" group of parents here.

Response:

Thanks Kay, all the comments open new doors of thought for me. I did not make it clear this is school has been ongoing for quite some time, it’s just that the teacher is new. There are procedures, etc in place, we’re just having a hard time getting this new teacher to realize there is a Real problem here. None of us are trying to decide how to deal with this child, we (I) are trying to gather information on how to approach the teacher about taking this to the next level I suppose. I think, bottom line, in this age of political correctness, people are just so hesitant to speak up for fear of offending someone else. I understand being polite, but we here have crossed the line into personal safety issues. (BTW-Ian has been having dreams lately about Cody giving him trouble in school.) You’re right that the teacher has not given us enough to have confidence in her! Don’t get me wrong – she is Really Nice!!! – it’s just that this particular situation needs more expertise and I would really like to approach her with some definite things for HER to take to the parents. I think it’s difficult too, as a parent, to be on the receiving end of this distruption. You have to really wonder (at least I do) how much is bad behavior and how much is intolerance of being "different". I think that is why the teacher is having such a hard time – she is trying to be tolerant and understanding in a situation that is proving itself to be beyond this approach. Just two other FYI quickies – this co-op is only for PreS – 3-5 yo’s, then we are all expected to go to our own school districts for formal education starting with Kindergarten. There are only 2 PreS co-ops in this area and they are been around for quite a long time. These "schools" focus many on getting along with other kids, manners, basic ABC’s & numbers, etc. Also, on the non-English family – they are from Thailand. We are not trying to exclude them, quite on the contrary, we go to lengths to Include them, however, they seem more comfortable simply dropping their child off and knodding hello. They get visibly uncomfortable with the language barrier when you try to get into any real conversation. It seems more respectful of them and their culture to allow them their privacy and not try to corner them into conversation. Also, an interesting note, our class is mostly boys, and it’s mainly the boys taking most of the abuse. The girls tend to stick together as a group. The Thai family has a daughter and she has, so far, not received very much negative attention from Cody. Although, with Cody spending time with the teacher after class, I have noticed that he is demonstrating more agression now toward’s the teacher’s DD in the classroom setting. What a Mess!!! Thanks again for your input. L

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi! > I think you are all in a very difficult situation. > The co-op obviously started with very good intentions, but now you have hit a > problem any you don’t have the systems set up to deal with it. > In the UK, we have similar groups with heavy parental involvement. However, we > are all supported by ‘umbrella groups’ who provide training and advice, and we > all have policies and guidelines to work by. We work to the same standard as > private nurseries. This is vital. If you are working in isolation you have to > re-invent the wheel! The solution to your problem exists, but you seem to be > trying to work it out from first principles. > It really isn’t healthy to have a group of parents trying to decide how to deal > with this child. Every child needs a level of confidentiality around their > education. (Just think how it might be in ten years time, when he is doing well > in school. All the parents involved in the co-op will still view him as ‘that > disturbed, sociopathic kid. That’s not fair.) You ned to be led by a highly > trained worker who is well supported. > I also feel concerned that the parents who speak little English seem to be > sidelined. It should be the teacher’s responsibility to make all parents feel > equally involved. > He possibly is just a rather immature child, but he needs firm boundaries, and > skilled teaching. If the teacher can’t provide that she either needs extra > training, someone else to help her or to ask the parents to try a different > setting. She has not given you the confidence that she can manage the > situation, so probably she can’t. > One trained worker is not enough for the group – there needs to be a staff group > to support each other. Perhaps one of the parents could train? > I hope you find some help. Bear in mind that this problem is going to arise > time and time again – children like this are not particularly unusual. > Kay > I need some input from the "been there, done that" group of parents here.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks for your input Judy. I haven’t seen any attitude changes yet, but > for a short time, the boys tried that trick of throwing objects randomly > behind them. I put a stop the that action quick!! I guess what is bringing > this to a head (for me) is my own sons. They had their 4 yo exam last > Monday and their Ped asked them about preschool. The three of them were > chatting and he asked something like "Do you like playing with your friends > at preschool" (or something similar) and one boys replied "All except Cody > John, he’s a bully!" and the other piped in "Yeah, he hits us and takes our > work away." That started a discussion between their Ped and I, and his > suggestion was to get the kid out of there immediately. Then, the next day > at dinner, I noticed that one of my sons had a bit of blood inside his nose. > When I asked him, he said "Cody John hit me!" and the other said "Yeah, he > smacked him right in the nose." We had a long talk about telling the > teacher about physical contact, and I remind them now when I drop them off > that NO ONE is allowed to hit ANYONE else. I really am taking great care > not to prejudice my sons against this kid, so I try to make things as > general as I can. My boys know that what is happening is not right and I > feel I am letting them down by not taking action.

You are not letting them down. You are gathering information. You’re not taking action in haste. You’ve shown that by postiing the question here & getting as many inputs as possible. With everyone’s answers & comments, you can better judge what you feel needs to be done. Use reason, acknowledge your gut feelings on this & you will know whether or not you have a good feeling about staying or whether you should move on. In the end, it is YOUR kid’s lives you are guiding and directing. I’m sure you will make the right decision. The school, the teacher & the other little boy’s family will have to be the ones concerned with him. Your responsibility is to your little guys. You asked about inexpensive child care. You could gather a group of friends and share days at each other’s homes. There are a variety of activities at local Recreation Centers, music, arts & crafts, sports, etc. Our town library has story time for little people once a week. Some high schools have preschool teaching classes where you can leave a child for a few hours. It may take some digging, but there are other options if you decide to change. If you decide to stay, then that’s fine too. Do you work? Is he there for social activity with others his age or because you really need child care? That of course is a big consideration. Good Luck. Hugs, Judy

Response:

Thanks again Jude. You have no idea (or maybe you do) how hard it was NOT to march back into school and demand justice when Ian got socked in the nose! I’m trying to be really fair, especially in this situation, because I know I am setting examples for the boys with my own actions. It’s amazing how much they pick up these days!! I’m constantly telling them that other kids aren’t "bad" – they just haven’t learned yet (to share, not to hit, to not have tantrums) and I encourage the boys to help set an example for them. Another mom and I (friends prior to preschool) have been spending time on activities for her son and my boys. We are lucky in that we could probably fill a calendar with different activities if we wanted to. I’ve learned, from experience, to be more picky choosy, but we could make our own program if we had to. Actually, my sons will be homeschooled when they reach K age – 1

People please help w/dilemma

admin — Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

GUYS look at his signature!! TROELL??? — Connie Proud mommy to Julianna Nicole aka "cutie pie"…12/10/99 http://pages.ivillage.com/pp/conniesbelly/babypage.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Urquhart" > >Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a >slight problem. I knocked some > >girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a >party and we were both drunk > >and we ended up fornicating. I never even met >this chick before. She > >was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I >am going to be a daddy. > >I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s >Catholic or some shit like > >that. How should I handle my new parenting >responsibilities? > >– > >Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and >forums > >Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more >ways (sm) > Troell >Before you buy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a slight problem. I knocked some >girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a party and we were both drunk >and we ended up fornicating. I never even met this chick before. She >was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I am going to be a daddy. >I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s Catholic or some shit like >that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities? >– >Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums >Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more ways (sm) > Troell

Just becaus you had sex with a girl that wont have an abortion that You made the decision to have sex with this particular girl, whether you were drunk or not If you dont want your child , thats your choice one day this girl will find a good daddy for the baby, like I did for my two children that their fathers didnt want!!!!! dont refer yourself as daddy if you dont want the child you are a FATHER there is a difference. Before you buy.

Response:

Urquhart" >Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a

slight problem. I knocked some >girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a

party and we were both drunk >and we ended up fornicating. I never even met

this chick before. She >was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I

am going to be a daddy. >I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s

Catholic or some shit like >that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities? >– >Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums >Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more ways (sm) > Troell

Before you buy.

Response:

>This boy is a troll.

::blushing:: I feel so embarrassed. I should have known better . . . sigh. Thanks, Aula Isa Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you criticize him, you’ll be a mile away, and have his shoes.

Response:

>Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a slight problem. I knocked some >girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a party and we were both drunk >and we ended up fornicating. I never even met this chick before. She >was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I am going to be a daddy. >I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s Catholic or some shit like >that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities? >– >Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums >Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more ways (sm)

Troell

Response:

>How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities?

Congratulations, Dad! Don’t complain about the quality of your child’s mother, you picked her! If you don’t want any more children, and you don’t feel like keeping it zipped in, have a vasectomy. If you don’t do either of these, you’ll probably have lots more. I’d start out by looking around for a parenting class. I’d also suggest contacting a lawyer to help you set up the child visitation and support arrangements. It’s not too early! You also might have your new lawyer suggest to this girl that adoption might not be a bad option, either . . . I hope both of you can try to keep the CHILD’s best interest in mind. Lots of luck. Isa Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you criticize him, you’ll be a mile away, and have his shoes.

Response:

> Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a slight problem. I knocked some > girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a party and we were both drunk > and we ended up fornicating. I never even met this chick before. She > was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I am going to be a daddy. > I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s Catholic or some shit like > that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities?

Lay off the sauce that got you into it in the first place, troll. — Jack Tarkaan Kalamazoo, Michigan — NO UNSOLICITED E-MAIL AT THIS ADDRESS – Respect privacy – NO SPAM!!!!

Response:

This boy is a troll. According to deja.com he does not subscribe to any ng’s and most of the posts I read of his were very inflammatory, asking some sort of question in the subject area of the ng name. Don’t feed the troll. – Aula

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a slight problem. I knocked some > girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a party and we were both drunk > and we ended up fornicating. I never even met this chick before. She > was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I am going to be a daddy. > I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s Catholic or some shit like > that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities? > — > Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums > Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more ways (sm)

Response:

My advice to you would be to handle your parental responsibilities by growing the hell up, buddy……and say a prayer that if you have daughter, she doesn’t meet up with a jackass like her daddy……who did the exact same thing that her mommy did but then turned around and labeled her trash for doing so. Josie

Response:

Yo, how is it going, dudes? OK, I have a slight problem. I knocked some girl up and got her pregnant. We were at a party and we were both drunk and we ended up fornicating. I never even met this chick before. She was a trailer trash slut. Anyway, this means I am going to be a daddy. I wanted her to get an abortion, but she’s Catholic or some shit like that. How should I handle my new parenting responsibilities? — Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums Talkway – http://www.talkway.com – Talk more ways (sm)

Response:

Punitive Potty Training: NO!

admin — Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> 10 months old? Oh my god I can’t believe anyone would > be this abusive. Your poor child. It is shit like this > that people have nightmares and flashbacks and mental > disorders. Remember that the majority of people > suffering from multiple personality disorders also > suffered child abuse, especially at an early age (and > sexual abuse at times also). I can’t believe someone > would be so stupid as to hit a 10 month old. Someone > should have taken this kid away from you the first time > you touched it.

I can believe people hit 10 month olds. And three month olds, 14 month olds, and any age you can mention. I believe this because it is true. In all the parenting classes I have taught and still teach, I am reminded how acceptable hitting and hurting children is in this culture (US). Parents proudly state that they smack, slap, hit, tap, swat their children, beginning in infancy. LaVonne

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 10 months old? Oh my god I can’t believe anyone would > be this abusive. Your poor child. It is shit like this > that people have nightmares and flashbacks and mental > disorders. Remember that the majority of people > suffering from multiple personality disorders also > suffered child abuse, especially at an early age (and > sexual abuse at times also). I can’t believe someone > would be so stupid as to hit a 10 month old. Someone > should have taken this kid away from you the first time > you touched it. >I can believe people hit 10 month olds. And three month olds, 14 month >olds, and any age you can mention. I believe this because it is true. >In all the parenting classes I have taught and still teach, I am >reminded how acceptable hitting and hurting children is in this culture >(US). Parents proudly state that they smack, slap, hit, tap, swat >their children, beginning in infancy. >LaVonne

And CPS proudly beats, molests, and kills thousands of kids. You conveniently forgot to mention this again LaVonne, I wonder why. Does that mean you support CPS and foster care prisons? Or does that mean you are afraid to speak up for children? Either way you’re a loser. Bill

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [snip] > : (She left out the things that were not so wonderful) and then she > : proudly told her young friend that she was wearing panties. Being as > : that the last spanking was just two weeks ago, she does still remember > : the spanking, but like most childhood memories, it will fade into > : nothingness as she ages, and will likely be gone before next Christmas. > She probably *will* forget the specific episodic memory of you > spanking her in order to "train" her to use the potty. Pretty much all > autobiographic memories are lost from age two. But just because people > don’t consciously remember maltreatment episodes from early in life does > not mean such episodes are harmless, irrelevant, or have no lasting > effects.

Yes, I am aware of that. I know that if my daughter craps in her pants when she’s 35, she will have a great deal of anxiety over it. Further, she will not understand why she is so anxious. It could be very traumatic for her. Was there some other thing that you were referring to. What was it? Tony, who is still the Antichris.

Response:

> And since having an accident in your underwear doens’t > have a painful consequence, you have to inflict it on > your child.

Exactly.. and once you do, there are no more accidents. I’m glad you are finally getting it. Tony.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can >> >encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross >> >generalizations, who is absurd. >> Whoa! Spanking a kid and telling her, along with the spanking, >> that she is good is one heck of a way to lead them into a life of >> spanking fetishes. >> Come on, guy! THINK! >Yesterday, my young daughter was on put on the phone with a small friend >whom she had not seen for quite some time. It took a moment before >recognition washed across her face, and then she was talking in an >almost incomprehensible babble. First came the telling of the joys of >Christmas, and the iteration of all the wonderful things she received, >(She left out the things that were not so wonderful) and then she >proudly told her young friend that she was wearing panties. Being as >that the last spanking was just two weeks ago, she does still remember >the spanking, but like most childhood memories, it will fade into >nothingness as she ages, and will likely be gone before next Christmas. > Well, as long as you are locked up on the short-term benefits to > you, then I guess that you are not even slightly interested in > hearing about the long-term harm that tends to come from > spanking.

I most certainly am interested, and have yet to see *anything* substantial. I expect that I have seen none because you have none. > BTW, how did you get from the perception that we remember > *everything* to this bit about this spanking memory shortly > fading into nothingness? Could it be because it was convenient > for you to see it this way, suddenly because it would allow you > to continue your controlling methods?

Nothingness was the wrong word to use. What I was trying to say is that she would not be fixated on it. Though the memory of it will remain, she will not recall that information. It’s importance is what will really fade into nothingness. Tony.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [snip] > : > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > : > non-coercively? > : > > : > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > : > non-punitively? > : > > : > Don’t be absurd. > : How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can > : encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross > : generalizations, who is absurd. > Did you, or did you not use spankings to "correct" your daughter > as part of her toilet training? Check one: > yes ____ no ____

I think we are a little old for childish games.. Don’t you. > Spanking is both coercive and punitive. > Chris

I have checked with my dictionary and it turns out that you are half correct. I was coercive, but I was not punitive, and a spanking is coercive by nature but there is nothing to say that it must be punitive. There is also nothing to say that being coercive is wrong, and I have seen several coercive and punishing posts from parents who are against spanking. Tony.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->: How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can >: encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross >: generalizations, who is absurd. > Did you, or did you not use spankings to "correct" your daughter >as part of her toilet training? Check one: > yes ____ no ____ > Spanking is both coercive and punitive. > And if the spanking is dressed up all pretty with a "atta girl", > it just sends those delightful mixed messages. Kids have most > interesting ways of dealing with mixed messages. They tend to > interpret them in ways that make sense to *them*.

There was no mixed message. You are making assumptions. You know what they say about those, don’t you? Tony.

Response:

> : Well I have a 7yr old son named William and when

he was potty training we > : would > : have never used spanking (even though we do to

discipline) to force him to > : potty train. He ran behind most kids in the potty

training time. But at the > : time he had just lost some one speacial to him and I felt that in his > : emotional > : state that to force him to potty train would only upset him further. > I applaud your sensitivity in recognizing

the emotional issues he > was going through, Amanda, and how they may have

been hindering his toilet > training progress. >Agreed.. > : But from > : my own research in asking around boys seem to be

more difficult to potty train > : than girls and children in general do much better

potty training if they are > : let do it in their own time.Spanking however has a

bad effect and could prolong > : the potty training of any child. > And even when coercive approaches to toilet training seem to > "work" in the short run, they can be extremely

harmful to the child > emotionally. >Agree also… > PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE > Back in the 19th century, children of the middle and upper > classes were often raised by nannies. These nannies were employees who > were less bonded to the children, if at all, than

their natural mothers, > and who favored potty training by the quickest

methods possible since it > made their difficult, underpaid job a little less

difficult. In the early > 20th century, as modern psychotherapy was taking shape, therapists’ > couches were full of people with various neuroses, compulsions and > obsessions which traced back to rapid, forced toilet training based on > spankings. >BS. Those people were on those couches because they were told that they >were bad when they were spanked, and because they were raised without >the love of their parents. Children who have that

love can survive any >experience without needing therapy. > One hears less about toilet training traumas

nowadays, because in > the twentieth century, more and more parents

recognized the wiser approach – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> which you advocate, Amanda, and didn’t inflict these sorts of needless > traumas on their youngsters. >I’ve said it before, and here it is again.. It is the words that are >most important. People who spank their children and tell them that are >bad are just asking for trouble. Children believe most anything that you >tell them.. If you tell them they are bad, they will believe you, and >they will act in accordance to that belief. > PHYSIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE > The urethra, which drains the bladder, and

the anus, both contain > two sets of muscular sphincters: an internal smooth muscle sphincter, > which is involuntary, and an external skeletal

muscle sphincter which is > voluntary. Although the external sphincters are

"voluntary," conscious > control of them is a learned behavior – just like

riding a bicycle. Yet > parents who would never dream of spanking their

child to "correct" them > from falling off their bicycle will spank their

child to "correct" them > for incomplete mastery of the learned skill of sphincter control. >Falling off of a bike has its own painful consequence.

And since having an accident in your underwear doens’t have a painful consequence, you have to inflict it on your child. > There is a physiological basis for why

punitive, pain-oriented > approaches to potty training appear to "work" in the short run. The > *internal* sphincters are under the unconscious,

involuntary control of > the autonomic nervous system. When a person is

afraid, the sympathetic > branch of the autonomic nervous system (known also as the "fight or > flight" response) is activated. Among the many

effects of activation of > the sympathetic nervous system: constriction of the

internal sphincters of > the urethra and anus. >Being punitive with violence is not something that I am an advocate of. >I incorporated spankings into my sons potty training, which reflection >tells me I started to early. (10mths). He is six now, and I have not >noticed any negative effects.

10 months old? Oh my god I can’t believe anyone would be this abusive. Your poor child. It is shit like this that people have nightmares and flashbacks and mental disorders. Remember that the majority of people suffering from multiple personality disorders also suffered child abuse, especially at an early age (and sexual abuse at times also). I can’t believe someone would be so stupid as to hit a 10 month old. Someone should have taken this kid away from you the first time you touched it. > Hence, when a child subjected to punitive

toilet training feels > themselves beginning to void urine or pass feces, a stab of fear races > through them: "OH NO! I being bad again! Now I will get another > SPANKING!!!" Their fright causes the involuntary

sphincters to contract > and may give them time to make it to the potty and

sit on it. Once they > are sitting on the potty, their fear begins to

subside because they are > out of danger. As their fear subsides, the

sympathetic activation recedes > and the involuntary sphincters relax, permitting the

passage of stool and > urine. >Yep.. Like I said.. They were told they were bad. That is the real >mistake, and it is a mistake no matter what you are trying to teach >them. > This is most emphatically not potty

"training." Children > subjected to this kind of terrorizing due to

something which is really > outside their conscious control have not mastered voluntary sphincter > control, even though they may appear to be "trained" in that they create > fewer messes for their parents to clean up. These

are children who have > been hurt, traumatized and frightened so that their parents can enjoy a > little more short term convenience and a little less

work than otherwise. >I know the kind of toilet training that you are

referring to, and I do >agree with you. What I disagree with is your

generalization. Spanking a >child during training does not make it punitive.

It makes it abusive. It is the things that >are said to the child that make that distinction. > If there was ever an example of spanking

serving the interests of > parents and not serving the interests of children,

spanking-oriented potty > training is it! >I disagree with that one.. Spankings are a gift that loving parents give >to their children.

No, spankings are an abusive outlet for parents who don’t know what else to do. I love my children and would die for them if it came to it but I would never "spank" them. A gift? Let your wife (or husband, whatever you are) hit you and tell you she loves you. I guess you agree with domestic abuse- a spouse abusing the other spouse. Normal people don’t think hitting is right. I guess all these elderly people in nursing homes should be hit since they have accidents in their pants. I hope your poor kid wasn’t like me and wet the bed. I wet the bed until I was 7 and my mother beat me with a belt every morning. It got to where I couldn’t sleep at night because I was scared I’d wet the bed. I tried so hard not to but I couldn’t help it. I can’t believe there are parents stupider than mine. At least mine didn’t hit me at 10 months because I couldn’t potty train. What kind of idiot thinks a 10 month old can be potty trained, anyway? I feel for your son and I hope he doesn’t have the problems I did and still do because of this kind of shit where the parent thinks he’s god and can do whatever he wants. Marie http://go.to/mommydowis If you had used the word beating, I would be in >agreement. In fact, I would agree with you most of the time if that >were the word you used.

Spanking and beating are the same thing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Tony

Response:

>: How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can >: encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross >: generalizations, who is absurd. > Did you, or did you not use spankings to "correct" your daughter >as part of her toilet training? Check one: > yes ____ no ____ > Spanking is both coercive and punitive.

And if the spanking is dressed up all pretty with a "atta girl", it just sends those delightful mixed messages. Kids have most interesting ways of dealing with mixed messages. They tend to interpret them in ways that make sense to *them*. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can > >encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross > >generalizations, who is absurd. > Whoa! Spanking a kid and telling her, along with the spanking, > that she is good is one heck of a way to lead them into a life of > spanking fetishes. > Come on, guy! THINK! >Yesterday, my young daughter was on put on the phone with a small friend >whom she had not seen for quite some time. It took a moment before >recognition washed across her face, and then she was talking in an >almost incomprehensible babble. First came the telling of the joys of >Christmas, and the iteration of all the wonderful things she received, >(She left out the things that were not so wonderful) and then she >proudly told her young friend that she was wearing panties. Being as >that the last spanking was just two weeks ago, she does still remember >the spanking, but like most childhood memories, it will fade into >nothingness as she ages, and will likely be gone before next Christmas.

Well, as long as you are locked up on the short-term benefits to you, then I guess that you are not even slightly interested in hearing about the long-term harm that tends to come from spanking. BTW, how did you get from the perception that we remember *everything* to this bit about this spanking memory shortly fading into nothingness? Could it be because it was convenient for you to see it this way, suddenly because it would allow you to continue your controlling methods? — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(KathyIg) writes: >Tony Peardon says: ><< Spankings are a gift that loving parents give to their children. >> >To use your own hand to inflict pain on your child and call this a "gift" is >scary. I know a lot of parents who believe in spanking. I’m not one of them. >Spanking says to me, "I’ve lost control of the situation and this is the >easiest way to deal with it." Hey, what’s easier — turn your child over your >knee or talk to them about what happened, how it made you feel and what to do >next time? ><< I incorporated spankings into my sons potty training, which reflection >tells >me I started to early. (10mths). >> >Spanking a 10-month old because he pooped his diaper. I’m at a loss for words >at this. >Tom

Don’t get too upset at this. You are at a loss of words. The person who beat the 10 month old child for performing a biological act is at the ‘loss of mind’ statge. Mark Probert A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America’s First Fuhrer!

Response:

[snip] : (She left out the things that were not so wonderful) and then she : proudly told her young friend that she was wearing panties. Being as : that the last spanking was just two weeks ago, she does still remember : the spanking, but like most childhood memories, it will fade into : nothingness as she ages, and will likely be gone before next Christmas. She probably *will* forget the specific episodic memory of you spanking her in order to "train" her to use the potty. Pretty much all autobiographic memories are lost from age two. But just because people don’t consciously remember maltreatment episodes from early in life does not mean such episodes are harmless, irrelevant, or have no lasting effects. Chris, who thought spanking-oriented potty training went out with whalebone corsets and buckboards.

Response:

: : > : I gotta say, again — you, sir, are an idiot! Actually, I didn’t say that, Glen did. I *did* write the following: : > Sphincter control is a learned neuromuscular skill which only : > comes with practice. If spanking as a method of "correction" of mistakes : > in children attempting to master learned neuromuscular skills was actually : > so efficacious, it ought to be useful elsewhere as well. How about : > teaching piano by spanking the child every time they play a wrong note? : > How about teaching a child to ride a two-wheeler bicycle by spanking them : > every time they fall off. : > : > No thinking parent would attempt to teach musical instruments or : > bike riding in this manner. Why would any thinking parent want to teach : > sphincter control this way?? : You misinterpret the reason for the spanking. If potty training, as it is done in your home, is *not* about the child learning sphincter control, what *is* it about? : reason #1. To remove the child from that which has been his comfort zone : so that a new zone of comfort can be more readily attained. Wet, messy pants are never comfortable. Children naturally become toilet trained when they are ready to master sphincter control. And if the sensation of messy pants somehow doesn’t bother them, the reaction of their peer group will, more and more, the older they get. You don’t have to spank your two year old daughter to make messing her pants uncomfortable for her. The natural consequences are uncomfortable. : reason #2. To let the child know that diapers are no longer acceptable : to you. (Children desire to please their parents) ^^^ In other words, "reason #2" is about *your* needs, not her’s. And I think this is what it all boils down to. : reason #3. For kinesthetic reinforcement to the discussion about potty : training. You *hit* her… for *messing her pants*… at the age of TWO! Calling it "kinesthetic reinforcement" does not make this any better. Do you have any response at all to the points I made earlier about the internal/external sphincters, voluntary learned motor skills, and sympathetic nervous system effects? Chris

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> : > The negative long-term effects of coercive, punitive toilet >> : > training have been known for the past century. >> : I was neither coercive nor punitive. >> You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it >> non-coercively? >> You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it >> non-punitively? >> Don’t be absurd. >How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can >encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross >generalizations, who is absurd. > Whoa! Spanking a kid and telling her, along with the spanking, > that she is good is one heck of a way to lead them into a life of > spanking fetishes. > Come on, guy! THINK!

Yesterday, my young daughter was on put on the phone with a small friend whom she had not seen for quite some time. It took a moment before recognition washed across her face, and then she was talking in an almost incomprehensible babble. First came the telling of the joys of Christmas, and the iteration of all the wonderful things she received, (She left out the things that were not so wonderful) and then she proudly told her young friend that she was wearing panties. Being as that the last spanking was just two weeks ago, she does still remember the spanking, but like most childhood memories, it will fade into nothingness as she ages, and will likely be gone before next Christmas. Tony.

Response:

[snip] : > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it : > non-coercively? : > : > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it : > non-punitively? : > : > Don’t be absurd. : How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can : encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross : generalizations, who is absurd. Did you, or did you not use spankings to "correct" your daughter as part of her toilet training? Check one: yes ____ no ____ Spanking is both coercive and punitive. Chris

Response:

Tony Peardon says: << Spankings are a gift that loving parents give to their children. >> To use your own hand to inflict pain on your child and call this a "gift" is scary. I know a lot of parents who believe in spanking. I’m not one of them. Spanking says to me, "I’ve lost control of the situation and this is the easiest way to deal with it." Hey, what’s easier — turn your child over your knee or talk to them about what happened, how it made you feel and what to do next time? << I incorporated spankings into my sons potty training, which reflection tells me I started to early. (10mths). >> Spanking a 10-month old because he pooped his diaper. I’m at a loss for words at this. Tom

Response:

> >"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach" > This is a quote from somebody who was probably incapable of teaching. Those > who can teach, those who can’t become school board members. > Or to quote Mark Twain > "God practiced on idiots, than he moved on to make school boards"

It was actually only half of a quote. It continues… "Those who cannot teach, administrate." Tony

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach" > This is a quote from somebody who was probably incapable of teaching. > Those > who can teach, those who can’t become school board members. > Or to quote Mark Twain > "God practiced on idiots, than he moved on to make school boards" > I prefer "those who can, do; those who can do better, teach" although I have > no idea who said. > Or even, "those who can, do; those you care, teach" although again I’m > uncertain of its origins.

I like both of those much better than mine, and if I ever use either of them, I will site you as their origin, because for me, that will be true. Tony.

Response:

>"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach" > This is a quote from somebody who was probably incapable of teaching. Those > who can teach, those who can’t become school board members. > Or to quote Mark Twain > "God practiced on idiots, than he moved on to make school boards"

I prefer "those who can, do; those who can do better, teach" although I have no idea who said. Or even, "those who can, do; those you care, teach" although again I’m uncertain of its origins.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> : > The negative long-term effects of coercive, punitive toilet > : > training have been known for the past century. > : I was neither coercive nor punitive. > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > non-coercively? > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > non-punitively? > Don’t be absurd. >How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can >encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross >generalizations, who is absurd.

Whoa! Spanking a kid and telling her, along with the spanking, that she is good is one heck of a way to lead them into a life of spanking fetishes. Come on, guy! THINK! Glen (where is Morgan when we really need her?) Appleby — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > The negative long-term effects of coercive, punitive toilet > : > training have been known for the past century. > : I was neither coercive nor punitive. > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > non-coercively? > You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it > non-punitively? > Don’t be absurd.

How can telling your child she is a good girl be punitive?? How can encouragement be coercive? I think that you are the one, with your gross generalizations, who is absurd. Tony. "Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach"

Response:

: Well I have a 7yr old son named William and when he was potty training we : would : have never used spanking (even though we do to discipline) to force him to : potty train. He ran behind most kids in the potty training time. But at the : time he had just lost some one speacial to him and I felt that in his : emotional : state that to force him to potty train would only upset him further. I applaud your sensitivity in recognizing the emotional issues he was going through, Amanda, and how they may have been hindering his toilet training progress. : But from : my own research in asking around boys seem to be more difficult to potty train : than girls and children in general do much better potty training if they are : let do it in their own time.Spanking however has a bad effect and could prolong : the potty training of any child. And even when coercive approaches to toilet training seem to "work" in the short run, they can be extremely harmful to the child emotionally. PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Back in the 19th century, children of the middle and upper classes were often raised by nannies. These nannies were employees who were less bonded to the children, if at all, than their natural mothers, and who favored potty training by the quickest methods possible since it made their difficult, underpaid job a little less difficult. In the early 20th century, as modern psychotherapy was taking shape, therapists’ couches were full of people with various neuroses, compulsions and obsessions which traced back to rapid, forced toilet training based on spankings. One hears less about toilet training traumas nowadays, because in the twentieth century, more and more parents recognized the wiser approach which you advocate, Amanda, and didn’t inflict these sorts of needless traumas on their youngsters. PHYSIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE The urethra, which drains the bladder, and the anus, both contain two sets of muscular sphincters: an internal smooth muscle sphincter, which is involuntary, and an external skeletal muscle sphincter which is voluntary. Although the external sphincters are "voluntary," conscious control of them is a learned behavior – just like riding a bicycle. Yet parents who would never dream of spanking their child to "correct" them from falling off their bicycle will spank their child to "correct" them for incomplete mastery of the learned skill of sphincter control. There is a physiological basis for why punitive, pain-oriented approaches to potty training appear to "work" in the short run. The *internal* sphincters are under the unconscious, involuntary control of the autonomic nervous system. When a person is afraid, the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system (known also as the "fight or flight" response) is activated. Among the many effects of activation of the sympathetic nervous system: constriction of the internal sphincters of the urethra and anus. Hence, when a child subjected to punitive toilet training feels themselves beginning to void urine or pass feces, a stab of fear races through them: "OH NO! I being bad again! Now I will get another SPANKING!!!" Their fright causes the involuntary sphincters to contract and may give them time to make it to the potty and sit on it. Once they are sitting on the potty, their fear begins to subside because they are out of danger. As their fear subsides, the sympathetic activation recedes and the involuntary sphincters relax, permitting the passage of stool and urine. This is most emphatically not potty "training." Children subjected to this kind of terrorizing due to something which is really outside their conscious control have not mastered voluntary sphincter control, even though they may appear to be "trained" in that they create fewer messes for their parents to clean up. These are children who have been hurt, traumatized and frightened so that their parents can enjoy a little more short term convenience and a little less work than otherwise. If there was ever an example of spanking serving the interests of parents and not serving the interests of children, spanking-oriented potty training is it! Chris

Response:

: > The negative long-term effects of coercive, punitive toilet : > training have been known for the past century. : I was neither coercive nor punitive. You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it non-coercively? You spanked her for messing her pants, but you did it non-punitively? Don’t be absurd. Chris

Response:

>"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach"

This is a quote from somebody who was probably incapable of teaching. Those who can teach, those who can’t become school board members. Or to quote Mark Twain "God practiced on idiots, than he moved on to make school boards"

Response:

> : Well I have a 7yr old son named William and when he was potty training we > : would > : have never used spanking (even though we do to discipline) to force him to > : potty train. He ran behind most kids in the potty training time. But at the > : time he had just lost some one speacial to him and I felt that in his > : emotional > : state that to force him to potty train would only upset him further. > I applaud your sensitivity in recognizing the emotional issues he > was going through, Amanda, and how they may have been hindering his toilet > training progress.

Agreed.. > : But from > : my own research in asking around boys seem to be more difficult to potty train > : than girls and children in general do much better potty training if they are > : let do it in their own time.Spanking however has a bad effect and could prolong > : the potty training of any child. > And even when coercive approaches to toilet training seem to > "work" in the short run, they can be extremely harmful to the child > emotionally.

Agree also… > PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE > Back in the 19th century, children of the middle and upper > classes were often raised by nannies. These nannies were employees who > were less bonded to the children, if at all, than their natural mothers, > and who favored potty training by the quickest methods possible since it > made their difficult, underpaid job a little less difficult. In the early > 20th century, as modern psychotherapy was taking shape, therapists’ > couches were full of people with various neuroses, compulsions and > obsessions which traced back to rapid, forced toilet training based on > spankings.

BS. Those people were on those couches because they were told that they were bad when they were spanked, and because they were raised without the love of their parents. Children who have that love can survive any experience without needing therapy. > One hears less about toilet training traumas nowadays, because in > the twentieth century, more and more parents recognized the wiser approach > which you advocate, Amanda, and didn’t inflict these sorts of needless > traumas on their youngsters.

I’ve said it before, and here it is again.. It is the words that are most important. People who spank their children and tell them that are bad are just asking for trouble. Children believe most anything that you tell them.. If you tell them they are bad, they will believe you, and they will act in accordance to that belief. > PHYSIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE > The urethra, which drains the bladder, and the anus, both contain > two sets of muscular sphincters: an internal smooth muscle sphincter, > which is involuntary, and an external skeletal muscle sphincter which is > voluntary. Although the external sphincters are "voluntary," conscious > control of them is a learned behavior – just like riding a bicycle. Yet > parents who would never dream of spanking their child to "correct" them > from falling off their bicycle will spank their child to "correct" them > for incomplete mastery of the learned skill of sphincter control.

Falling off of a bike has its own painful consequence. > There is a physiological basis for why punitive, pain-oriented > approaches to potty training appear to "work" in the short run. The > *internal* sphincters are under the unconscious, involuntary control of > the autonomic nervous system. When a person is afraid, the sympathetic > branch of the autonomic nervous system (known also as the "fight or > flight" response) is activated. Among the many effects of activation of > the sympathetic nervous system: constriction of the internal sphincters of > the urethra and anus.

Being punitive with violence is not something that I am an advocate of. I incorporated spankings into my sons potty training, which reflection tells me I started to early. (10mths). He is six now, and I have not noticed any negative effects. > Hence, when a child subjected to punitive toilet training feels > themselves beginning to void urine or pass feces, a stab of fear races > through them: "OH NO! I being bad again! Now I will get another > SPANKING!!!" Their fright causes the involuntary sphincters to contract > and may give them time to make it to the potty and sit on it. Once they > are sitting on the potty, their fear begins to subside because they are > out of danger. As their fear subsides, the sympathetic activation recedes > and the involuntary sphincters relax, permitting the passage of stool and > urine.

Yep.. Like I said.. They were told they were bad. That is the real mistake, and it is a mistake no matter what you are trying to teach them. > This is most emphatically not potty "training." Children > subjected to this kind of terrorizing due to something which is really > outside their conscious control have not mastered voluntary sphincter > control, even though they may appear to be "trained" in that they create > fewer messes for their parents to clean up. These are children who have > been hurt, traumatized and frightened so that their parents can enjoy a > little more short term convenience and a little less work than otherwise.

I know the kind of toilet training that you are referring to, and I do agree with you. What I disagree with is your generalization. Spanking a child during training does not make it punitive. It is the things that are said to the child that make that distinction. > If there was ever an example of spanking serving the interests of > parents and not serving the interests of children, spanking-oriented potty > training is it!

I disagree with that one.. Spankings are a gift that loving parents give to their children. If you had used the word beating, I would be in agreement. In fact, I would agree with you most of the time if that were the word you used. Tony

Response:

Separation of Church & State

admin — Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Has anyone thought of this dicotomy? As an individual, if I used my own money to send my children to a religious school, the separation of church and state issue would not come into play. On the other hand because some politicans a long time ago decided that they would take my money to fund public education, separation of church and state comes into play.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: > >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, > >or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > >and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley >All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make >it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a >religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and >not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other >religious establishment, either in support or opposition.

The difference is… a Supreme Court decision can be reversed by another Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, can only be changed after a two thirds vote of the Senate and ratification by three fourths of the states. Supreme court decisions are only the current thinking of the current justices on what the Constitution means. Their decisions do not change the Constitution and can be overturned. I was not arguing for federal money to support churches. The original question was in reference to "separation of church and state". I pointed out that separation of church and state are not mentioned in the Constitution, only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Ron Kelley

Response:

>hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart

Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less government. -Connie

Response:

Are you sure the American people haven’t grown to like socialism? If so, then there is not return. Only war. I wonder who will tell us, "tear that wall down." ??? Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart >Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope >is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less >government. >-Connie

Response:

Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you write your congressman & complain Hatcher. Cajun

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant > >>when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it > >>applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was > >>to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to > >>me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here? > There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: > >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, > >or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > >and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley > All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make > it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a > religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and > not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other > religious establishment, either in support or opposition. > This has allowed some terrible cranks to make a lot of mischief, but it > has kept far more cranks from making even worse mischief. > — > EAH > Otium cum dignitate

Response:

>>hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart >Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope >is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less >government.

Yes. The good old Republican party as we knew it circa the last half century minus the last few years. The more I read about this, the more it looks like what the people who wrote the constitution were really worried about keeping the church and state separate. Keeping religion as voluntary, rather than what happens when Religion gets the force of law. That opens up all kinds of situations where instead of voluntary participation, there can be mandatory requirements. And woe is it for heretics, atheists, pagans, etc. Inquisition it could become for them. Looks more and more like the founding people were more worried about the tyranny of religion (what some can become), rather than freedom of Religion. We seem to take the Freedom Of Religion part for granted and then have to struggle with the Freedom "From" Religion. concept. A few more indications of what was going on circa late 1700s. These writings plus much more come out of a Book called Spirit of America by William Bennett. Maybe someday I will buy more books about Federalist papers etc. We should be paying extra attention to James Madison.: He was the one who wrote the first amendment.t. So as we try to figure out what was meant beyond the obvious exact words, this should help in that interpretation. Looks to me that he was worried about both concepts freedom of religion and freedom from religion without actually saying so in those words. The following is a combination of Burkart, Bennett, Madison, Jefferson, B Rush and some of Burkart’s paraphrases etc. If anyone has trouble seeing who said what, let me know. James Madison to William Bradford Jr Jan 24 1774 Mentions how he was a member of the Episcopalian Church which was the established Religion of Virginia. Witnessed the persecution and imprisonment of a half dozen Baptist preachers. This was a letter expressing his outrage. Madison wrote the first amendment guaranteeing religious liberty to all Americans "—-not less than five or six well meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments? BB note: This is the part where it looked like freedom of Religion. All the rest of his writings which I have seen were more along the other lines. Freedom "from" religion In 1779 Jefferson proposed the bill for the Virginia Assembly which included excerpts I mentioned in this thread. About not wanting to be forced to give contributions to the church. The no man should be compelled to frequent or support religious worship etc. His bill was enacted in 1786 which I now see as a replacement for a bill which would have imposed a tax on everyone to support the church (Specifically Christian- all sects).. Madison was there with Jefferson in support of Jefferson. James Madison "A Memorial and Remonstrance" Oct 1985 Some of what Bennet indicated – paraphrase etc.: In 1784 Patrick Henry had introduced (into Virginia Legislature) a bill to support the teachers of the Christian religion of all sects. Bennet mentions that it most likely would have passed with support of Washington , Marshall, and Lee if it were not for Madison. He made a case for Jefferson’s bill mentioned above to prohibit forceful contributions or presence to the church etc. Madison said: " ‘ A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,’ and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law , will be a dangerous abuse of power, and bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, —-more words—-"to n and also: "Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence.." goes on to say.this is an unalienable right etc and cannot follow the dictate of others etc. and also It degrades the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to legislative authority. Distant as it may be in it’s present form from the Inquisition it differs only in degree." Another one of these: Benjamin Rush to John Adams 1811 "—some words– mot of the Founders agreed that religions faith cannot be directed by outward force. and "But could this right be realized if the state and the church were one, ads they then were in England and most of the World? The danger they foresaw was twofold: Just as men with political ambitions might make use of religion to usurp the rights of the people, so too men with religions ambitions might make use of government to extend their spiritual kingdoms. Thus the Founders separated church from state in order to protect the rights of each individual to worship freely, without fear of prosecution." Goes on to indicate that Madison said Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government. Note: BB has been saying this sort of thing for some time now.The implications of freedom "from religion". However I would add what should be obvious which is that it is not just to protect people to worship freely, but to protect people who do not worship at all. That is a big part of separation of church and state. Do not have a situation where the force of law, jail terms, burning at the stake etc can happen due to some kind of a heretic type of thing. Do not create a situation which in the long terms (many years), could lead to another Spanish Inquisition etc. B.Burkart

Response:

> Jim is a Communist of the Religous Left. > Jeff

I like to think in terms of Religious Right, and Godless left. When you think about it, there is no group more zealous then the fanatics of the ACLU & Godless left. They would rather gouge out their eyes then gaze upon a creche or a menorah on public property. The idea of a class of school children raising their hearts and minds to God in a moment of prayer is abhorrent to them. I am amazed that the American people can co-exist with such an intolerant, arrogant and rabid bunch. Cajun – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – your >>assumption is incorrect. >>> The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. >>> The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several >>> colonys DID restrict religious freedom. >>> The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >>>as had been done in England. >>> There’s a big difference. >>If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >>violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >>a state religion"? >>>The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >>>cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. >>> Jim >>> Ga. >Jerry + others. >See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe >explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of >other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from >religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and >state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the >9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. >There was an article a violation of church and state relative to >a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle >or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges >was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious >training. This particular case involved schools where religion >permeated almost everything that happened. >There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located >one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for >Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the >Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 > . >Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc >so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least >one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. >It says in part: >"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the >propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is >sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this >or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him >of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the >particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- >etc " >And >"We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall >be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or >ministry whatsoever —– " >As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are >not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed >into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of >operation and interfering with the separation of church and state >which is a good thing. >I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be >kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one >little part of that. And the idea that some person might get >elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional >decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. > Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real >political party again like it was just a few years ago. This >prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect >from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart

Response:

>left to their own devices, many regions of the country would be >willing to abandon education of the young as a goal.

In fact, it was a major felony to teach or provide schools for blacks in most Southern states before emancipation, an attitude which persists today. Jim Ga.

Response:

>I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in >education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the >powers >not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide.

I tend to agree with you, but probably for different reasons. I think parents should decide on the education for their children and pay for it. The reality is that children receive more education from TV and the Internet than from the classroom. One of the problems with our current education system is that we expect it to socialize our children rather than just educate them. I would like to see education reserved for academic topics only and remove all social acitivies such as sports, parties, counseling, babysitting, job training, drivers ed, drug ed, etc. By academics I mean reading, communicating, history, and a knowledge of the physical world around them. If parents aren’t capable of seeing to their children’s education, then there is a question as to whether they should be parents. This is unrealistic at the current time, so I would put money into teaching them parenting skills. I know of one preschool program that does this. If the children are in daycare, then the parents must attend parenting classes. This is money well spent. -Connie

Response:

: : >Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them : >went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also : >Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you : >write your congressman & complain Hatcher. : >Cajun : : The whole purpose of the seperation of Church and State was to prevent the : government from dictating religion as was done in England, Italy and Spain at : the time. : : I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in : education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers : not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide. : : : Bill Rollins in New Mexico : Secretary, NASCAR Bowling League : Delegate, Las Cruces Bowling Association : President, Las Cruces Youth Bowling Association : Y.A.B.A. Level II Certified Bowling Coach : : : Hi Good to see you again. Doris F. :

Response:

>I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in >education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers >not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide.

This approach has proven to be inadequate to provide a more equal educational opportunity to all students. It all started when school districts segregated their schools, and then underfunded schools in "undesirable" areas. the Federal involvement in local schools only came after the locals screwed it up. This still goes on today in many areas, not necessarily race-related. Jim Ga.

Response:

>Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them >went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also >Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you >write your congressman & complain Hatcher. >Cajun

The whole purpose of the seperation of Church and State was to prevent the government from dictating religion as was done in England, Italy and Spain at the time. I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide. Bill Rollins in New Mexico Secretary, NASCAR Bowling League Delegate, Las Cruces Bowling Association President, Las Cruces Youth Bowling Association Y.A.B.A. Level II Certified Bowling Coach

Response:

The Religous Left. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> James A. Chamblee wrote > > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, > as had been done in England. > If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this > violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing > a state religion"? >You don’t suppose they could be lying, do you? Nah. No one lies anymore. >We’re all too adult to lie about things like that. And we’re all too >sophisticated to fall for such transparent BS. >—– >Murph >***** >"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Aldous Huxley)

Response:

Jim is a Communist of the Religous Left. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->assumption is incorrect. >> The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. >> The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several >> colonys DID restrict religious freedom. >> The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >>as had been done in England. >> There’s a big difference. >If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >a state religion"? >>The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >>cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. >> Jim >> Ga. >Jerry + others. >See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe >explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of >other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from >religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and >state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the >9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. >There was an article a violation of church and state relative to >a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle >or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges >was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious >training. This particular case involved schools where religion >permeated almost everything that happened. >There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located >one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for >Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the >Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 > . >Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc >so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least >one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. >It says in part: >"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the >propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is >sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this >or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him >of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the >particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- >etc " >And >"We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall >be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or >ministry whatsoever —– " >As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are >not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed >into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of >operation and interfering with the separation of church and state >which is a good thing. >I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be >kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one >little part of that. And the idea that some person might get >elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional >decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. > Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real >political party again like it was just a few years ago. This >prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect >from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >>when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >>applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >>to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >>me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here? > There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, >or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, >and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley

All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other religious establishment, either in support or opposition. This has allowed some terrible cranks to make a lot of mischief, but it has kept far more cranks from making even worse mischief. — EAH Otium cum dignitate

Response:

The true and hidden purpose of separation of church and state set up by are fore fathers ? easy question. If this country was to ever completely go bank rump the government could move in and take the assist away from the churches to pay off the country deaths and still have money left over,set up as a fail safe. #2 Give people the right to their own religion / belief. Most of us think thats why, Iam sure there where many other reasons The #1 reason is for this country to stay alive, and thats something we all should be thankful for. most of the time, don’t be fooled be cautious.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >assumption is incorrect. > The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. > The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several > colonys DID restrict religious freedom. > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >as had been done in England. > There’s a big difference. >If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >a state religion"? >The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. > Jim > Ga.

Jerry + others. See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the 9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. There was an article a violation of church and state relative to a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious training. This particular case involved schools where religion permeated almost everything that happened. There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 . Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. It says in part: "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- etc " And "We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or ministry whatsoever —– " As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of operation and interfering with the separation of church and state which is a good thing. I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one little part of that. And the idea that some person might get elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real political party again like it was just a few years ago. This prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it wants to be part of the state.. B.Burkart

Response:

assumption is incorrect. > The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. > The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several > colonys DID restrict religious freedom. > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, as > had been done in England. > There’s a big difference.

If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing a state religion"? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State cannot permit > an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. > Jim > Ga.

Response:

>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?

It is a good thing if the purpose is to prevent the religious people from making the state do what it wants them to do. That is because in today’s America, Religious freedom flourishes. No discernable problems. But today’s regular people are in danger of being ruled in a way similar to a theocracy. And that is not what the US is supposed to be. I think the answer to what you might or might not be missing is not in what the constitution might "explicitly" say. But what is "implicit". And of common sense if we are to think of the US as a place that is supposed to be free from gov oppression etc. The freedom "of" religion seems to be well understood by all. But the need for a freedom "from" religion does not seem to be as easily understood. There was a long thread circa a yr or two ago which I started. As best as I can recall, most in the usenet gp thought there is by the constitution or at least should be freedom "from" religion. Even the most conservative of the conservatives here at that time believed in what is commonly called separation of church and state. Though they might have not considered some of the most common issues to be a part of that. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among those are Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The constitution says in part: The preamble in part: "—–and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity —–" Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press —–" Amendment 9 "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There are also some Federalist papers etc, some of which I have read, most of which I have not read. Some in particular express a fear of having to be part of Religion if do not want to. Such as paying for religious training etc (more or less the school voucher thing).. (Could most likely find that one if needed — in one of my books). My take on all of this is that it is very important that in addition to freedom of religion, it is important that people who are to be free, and in the pursuit of happiness etc, need to be free from religion. That leads to the concept of separation of church and state even though those words are not mentioned in the constitution. If the state were to take over religion, that would be interference from freedom of religion. Each person to do his religion as he/she desires. But if religion were to take over the state, the opposite could occur. The secular government, when run by religion, or a lot of people of the same religion could easily pass laws etc which would interfere with the rights of people to not have to be subject to the religions. Or just people of many different Religions who are dependent on the Church Bosses to get elected and need to do their bidding. Not the people’s bidding. I can come up with many examples of this. Did a few years ago, just recently in another political use net gp, and from just simple experience. The school prayer thing. People can organize and pray all they want in schools. Prayer in schools is a fact. The problem with the Republican push for prayer in schools is that it goes beyond that. And can interfere with people;s rights to not have it. Such as in the Jewish kid’s situation in the Southern Religious atmosphere. The UN thing. Foreign policy not as a normal secular policy but as the result of a Religious policy. The pledge of allegiance under God etc. The last time this came up if I can recall everyone was saying well it is OK because it can be one nation under their own God. But then one or more people who were atheists (and war veterans too) spoke up and indicted that they did not want to do that. The potential of laws like a town that wanted to make the 10 commandments its law and the Bilble it’s constitution. Or where one of the Religious school’s policy, is that the constitution is not the only constitution, but it is the constitution and the Religious items etc. So is it to jail if you do not do the worship of the God? Or the abortion issue. Not just the issue of good vs bad. But the issue of the woman’s life vs the babies. The recent case in Louisiana where the wife had to have a 50 % chanced of death to get an abortion . Even with Roe v Wade, no doctor in the entire state would do an abortion for her even if the money was collected by charity for her. A secular state has a smaller chance of that kind of madness than a religious state. Or the examples of the theocracies. Where women are supposed to be killed by relatives if there is something that even looks like flirtation. Or the veils. Or the submits. Etc. Or maybe no movies, no dancing, no nothing unless the elder says so. Or the libraries, schools etc. No Darwin. No Huckleberry Finn, no anything. Or maybe holy wars. Wars against Catholics, Jewish States, Muslim, regular Protestant etc Every one other than whatever sect happen to have the most elected officials and therefor able to run the state like a church. The help the Serbs massacre the ethnic Albanians in part because maybe they are Christians?. Or fix the supreme court. So that they will not take the interpretation relative freedom of people from repression by the religious. But rather an interpretation that since church and state is not implicit, it is supposedly somehow OK for the church to take over the United States. One of the current candidates indicated that he would arrange the supreme court if elected via appointment of certain types of judges etc.. That is scary. Or in the extreme case, we could eventually go full loop back to the witch burning and the burning of the people who stand up for the witches. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Or where one of two major party’s platform is all about religion and not about government. Prayer, vouchers, abortion, Not about taxes, fiscal policy , foreign policy etc. It seems like the current Republican party is a church that is trying to run the state. That is the equivalent of no, or little separation of church and state. And I carefully look to see if I am voting for a churchman or a real politician when deciding whether to vote. Used to be just pull one lever for Republicans and then go ahead and do something else. The list could go on and on and on. So it is the desire / need to be "free from Religion" and or the possibility of religion run amok in the name of the state. Just go back and think of yourself on the fire, or in the torture chambers. And then see if you too might want a little bit of "freedom from Religion". So some people are worried about the Religious takeover which has already happened to quite an extent. If this does not help you "get it" or see what you might be "missing", it is possible that nothing will. On the other hand, maybe some might think all this is not too good. And maybe want to go back to pre 1992 where more Republicans could vote for Republicans once again. B.Burkart

Response:

>>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?

There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. The first Amendment reads: >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, >or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, >and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html It’s all there. Ron Kelley

Response:

> James A. Chamblee wrote > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, > as had been done in England. > If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this > violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing > a state religion"?

You don’t suppose they could be lying, do you? Nah. No one lies anymore. We’re all too adult to lie about things like that. And we’re all too sophisticated to fall for such transparent BS. —– Murph ***** "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Aldous Huxley)

Response:

>I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?

Despite what Jerry J. has to say, your assumption is incorrect. The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several colonys DID restrict religious freedom. The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, as had been done in England. There’s a big difference. The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. Jim Ga.

Response:

Nope. You’ve got it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant > when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it > applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was > to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to > me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?

Response:

What do you mean? Do you mean that religion is limiting the state? If so, in what way? I admit that I think both left and right are trying to legislate their morals. The Religious Right is trying to legislate bedroom issues such as who can have sexual intercourse with whom. The left is trying to do things such as conduct war for "humanitarian" reasons. -Connie

Response:

I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?