Customer Discussions > Parenting forum

Spanking your children should be ILLEGAL, Part Two!

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 553 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 9, 2012 4:06:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2012 4:08:46 PM PDT
Richard says:
most of the stuff on the site uses extreme examples,

I would be interested in knowing what exactly it was that you read, and how you could so quickly assess "most of the stuff" in as much as there may be 100 entries (didn't count them). What exactly reminded you of the communist manifesto and Tokyo Rose?

Do not bother praying for me, it is a waste of time. Thanks for the thought though. Do you intend to stick around and have a conversation or are you finished with what you think you had to say?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 11:38:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2012 11:41:45 PM PDT
kiwani says:
paul j,
perhaps you do not want to read 10,000 posts of our old forum, but perhaps you might benefit from reading the 5 pages here on this new forum-there are not as many posts here for sure, but there are some good info posts here, too...

the stuff you posted is sad and sadly misinformed--as well as long-term harmful for your children & your family well-being, and well-functioning. It is extremely sad that your must resort to having your children 'fear daddy' in order for you to 'encourage' them to listen to you, follow the family rule, & behave. And it is pathetic that your wife must also resort to coercion & 'threats of daddy" to compel good behavior also.

Does this not strike you as odd?? There is no good reason for this to be so unless parents are inept & ignorant of positive parenting techniques that will produce the same, or better results, but without the violence.
There is NO REASON for this, whatsoever.

your sentence: [["She is a very sensitive loving little girl and behaves quite well for the most part - my wife and child heehee. "]], is disgusting-mostly because you felt it funny to include your 'wife's' behavior in it, too, and it shows the little amount of respect you have toward your wife & child, the type of person you are, & where your values are.

Yes, children will always test the limits and their boundaries, but this is where it is important for parents to be consistent in enforcing the family rules & guidelines, and this is easily accomplished without the use of hitting, spanking, smacking, or beating your child with a belt -IF a parent takes the time to learn parenting techniques of how to accomplish this.

The bible was written by "Men" - NOT gd. The bible was written by men who wanted to show their importance & prove their authority - NOT gd. The bible was written by men 2000-YEARS-ago who were paternalistic and authoritarian. The bible was written by men ruled by their EGO. The bible was written by MEN - NOT gd.

The part of the bible you say has 'great advice' on rearing [I imagine you are speaking of the rod-stuff;(], is also in the old testament [old Hebrew], contradictory to the new testament of Jesus who purports us to 'turn the other cheek,' but even so that part was written by MEN "MORE THAN 2000-YEARS-ago, and you expect it to apply to us in this totally different century--the 21st CENTURY??? We have learned MUCH MORE about children, about parenting, about psychology, about human behavior since that get real--anything in there is WAY OUTDATED!

Your description 'in your own words' of your growing up years is spanked-lectured-punished-threatened and DYSFUNCTIONAL---yet, you say you still think it is FUNCTIONAL(?) to treat your children that way IF you do it in moderation? !B-A-L-O-N-E-Y! That is NOT "discipline" this is punishment and is NOT teaching a child. It is NOT love either. [btw-dysfunctional is actually something different--you are using an incorrect term here]

You are also inconsistent: Above you say you were spanked-hit-punished-threatened, & then in your post below you contradict that by saying you never got spanked---which is it? I think you are making up all you wrote:
[["I am basing mine on my own experience. I feel since my parents never spanked me it caused me to have lack of confidence and not stand up for my beliefs for fear of getting hit. By the time my kids are 18, since I have spanked them so few times, they will not even think much about it. But in the meantime they realize there is punishment in this world and especially for wrong doings."]]

"Your buddy" was right to be rattled, and he should be afraid:
Spanking a girl in puberty like that "sexualizes" spanking, and is totally unacceptable-EVER!
He is setting a very-dangerous stage for her relationships with future boyfriends &/or her husband.

AND "I" am basing this on many years MY EXPERIENCE as a Child Welfare-Foster Care Supervisor, a professional Master's Social Worker, an Early Childhood Educator, and a PARENT of 2-adult children in their late 20s whom I NEVER needed to spank!

Richard gave BOTH of you a very valuable suggestion to enroll in parenting classes IMMEDIATELY!

fyi--James Dobson is an abuser.
fyi--Marjorie Gunnoe is debunked, and not seen in the mainstream by her peer-researchers.
fyi--And there is no-such thing as "hard"-love".

[p.s. Richard never wrote anything about his parents/or family life - stop assuming & stop making things up]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 2:44:11 AM PDT
Richard says:
Do not try to make this about me if you want me to pay attention to your posts. I gave reasons for rejecting the content of your post and now, you are obligated to defend your post. Attacking me is not defending the ideas I challenged. Do you see? Defend James Dobson, if you can. Should people lend credence to him simply because he is a Christian? Why? Why should he wield so much political power?

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 8:06:53 AM PDT
Richard says:
Costa Rica
Criminal Court of Cassation says parental authority does not include hurting children

In October 2005, the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Second Circuit Court of San Jose dismissed an appeal by a father convicted for punishing his daughter with a belt. The father's argument was that his actions were based on "a custom that has existed for over twenty years" and that he had used a soft belt that did not have a buckle.

The Court stated that legislation recognises the right and duty conferred under parental authority to, "in a moderate way, correct children" (Family Code, art. 143). However, the Court argued:

"... this can in no way be interpreted as a general authorization for parents or guardians of minors to hurt them without being punished for that action or simply to dispose of their lives as they please. This concept is an atavistic approach of family relationships, according to which the father disposed of all assets, including his wife and children. On the contrary, according to the legislation in force in Costa Rica, minors are vested with rights and duties and the State must watch out for their physical and moral integrity."

The Court quoted article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - the right to protection from all forms of physical or mental violence - and the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in the home. The Court also quoted Costa Rica's domestic legislation recognizing children's right to respect for their "physical, psychological, and moral integrity" (Children and Adolescents Code, art. 24), concluding "that the rights granted to parents under the paternal rights and duties is limited by the human rights of minors and the prohibitions expressly established in the criminal laws" and stating:

"In short, parents - even though vested with parental rights and duties have no `right' to hurt their children. Accepting otherwise would breach the principle of equality, established in article 33 of the Political Constitution, since aggression with weapons is not allowed among adults, let alone against persons who are vulnerable and/or within the family circle. Respect for physical integrity is part of respect for human dignity, and therefore, there is no legal standing to deteriorate the human rights of the victims in this case."

For these and other reasons the appeal was declared unfounded.

The full text of the Costa Rica judgment is available here (PDF).

As at February 2007, legislation is under discussion in Costa Rica which would prohibit all corporal punishment of children, including within the family. For further details, see the country report for Costa Rica.

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 8:13:10 AM PDT
Deeone says:
Pennsylvania law for spanking:
[The Pennsylvania Code]

Parents can use reasonable supervision and control when raising their children. 23 § 6302. [Civil Code] Parent/guardian/person responsible for general care and supervision/ person acting at request of the above may use force for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting welfare of minor including the prevention or punishment of his misconduct, if the force is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, mental distress, or gross degradation. 18 § 509. [Criminal Code]


Posted on Jul 10, 2012 8:16:02 AM PDT
Deeone says:
Texas penal code

[Texas Statutes]

Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code § 261.001. [Civil Code] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal § 9.61. [Criminal Code]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 10:00:04 AM PDT
Richard says:
As I pointed out before, it is laws written like this that must be revised or revoked entirely in favor of explicit bans against any kind of physical force. We have supplied overwhelming justification based on four decades of statistical research why the change is mandatory. The issue is how to get the country to agree. Child care experts are mostly behind such a change.

In the section you quote above do you see that force is being justified, yet there are many techniques of guiding children that do not pose the risk that using force has. The wording of that paragraph is so vague as to make it useless. All such laws do is give parents the feeling they can do as they please.

The Texas law is even a bigger farce. "Parent is justified to use non-deadly force against a child". I guess there are some fearsome toddlers in Texas.

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 10:21:47 AM PDT
Deeone says:
""All such laws do is give parents the feeling they can do as they please."" per Richard

I do believe it still is possible that "we all" have the feeling that we can do as we please or you would not be able to be sitting there telling me and others how awful it is you got spanked and the world should stop DOING IT RIGHT NOW!

There will always be a difference of opinion:

Spanking is not abuse when done with caution!! and done for discipline not out of anger resulting in physical abuse. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!

PS: most CHILD EXPERTS don't even have children or they themselves have issues they didn't deal with very well.

Last evening a 23yo boy was shot and later died -- do you think it was caused BECAUSE the other two boys WERE spanked? or because they are out and out BAD KIDS! They have been identified and are headed to New Jersey. The crowd of other kids shouted/chanted they would not talk to "the cops".

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 1:34:40 PM PDT
Richard says:
There will always be a difference of opinion:

Laws are not based on people's opinions. Or at least they shouldn't be. Do you realize why it would be wrong to base our laws on people's opinions?

No one is claiming that spanking is abuse. It is a risk factor for abuse. Unless you understand this simple fact, you will never understand this issue.

Who said child experts don't have children? Where did you get that. Prove it. You throw out these sweeping claims without any justification. All you do is hurt your credibility. Who would possibly think you have any knowledge or experience to judge such a thing. Just another unfounded claim.

In any case, it doesn't matter. By this logic, men should not vote on laws effecting women, whites should have no say in what happens to blacks. I don't have to be a rapist to know that rape is very bad.

You need to think much deeper about the issues here, but first of all you must know what the issues are and you are completely off track.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 4:39:11 PM PDT
AMan sir;
I dunno wher the slogan came from about the rods and spare urn.

But I'm a mechanic by trade and have worked hared and raised a familiy of fore kids. An I will lay a wise slogan on ya about razing kids I learned when Mr. Goodwrench said;

Give a kid a wrench and he'll take a file!

What's that tellya Russell?

Means the kid will end up in jail trying to file out the bars and escape!

So spank the 'ell outa yer kids, make 'em right and enflunce them to be ladies and mechanics!


Posted on Jul 11, 2012 4:17:21 AM PDT
Richard says:
Why Does Everyone Pretend There's A `Spanking Debate'?
By Lisa Belkin, Huffington Post, July 9, 2012

By Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio

Spanking was a subject of debate on every parenting website on the continent during the past week, and I don't understand why.

Yes, I know why it was a topic of conversation - the prestigious journal Pediatrics released a study early in the week showing a possible link between childhood spanking and mental health struggles later in that child's life, and that was news worth talking about.

What I don't understand is why it was a debate. By definition, that would require two sides. I see only one.

At what point does something become simple fact? The Pediatrics article was just the latest in a decades-long march of studies showing spanking - defined as hitting with an open hand in order to correct or punish - to be ineffective at best and psychologically harmful at worst.

In April, an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal analyzed two decades of data and concluded that spanking has no upside, and its downsides include increased risk for depression, anxiety, substance abuse and aggressive behavior later in life.

A few years earlier, another Pediatrics study, this one by researchers at Tulane University, concluded that children who are spanked as often as twice a month at age 3 are twice as likely to become aggressive, destructive and mean when they are 5.

And it has been a decade since Columbia University psychologists went through more than 80 studies over 62 years and found that there was a "strong correlation" between parents who used "corporal punishment" and children who demonstrated 11 measurable childhood behaviors. Ten of the behaviors were negative, including such things as increased aggression and increased antisocial behavior. Only one could be considered positive - spanking did result in "immediate compliance."

So would pointing a gun in their general direction. But that does not make it the right thing to do. And, as other research points out, if that temporary compliance comes at the price of long-term depression or defiance, then what has really been gained?

In spite of this mountain of data, though, polls and studies find that up to 90 percent of parents spank their children. And each time we parenting reporters write about the latest studies, our comment threads fill with practitioners, whose remarks range from outrage ("I was hit and I turned out okay god damn it") to despair ("I don't want to hit, but it is the only way I can get them to listen"). (You can get the idea here...)

I am continually amazed at what it takes to redirect parenting opinion. It is dizzying how quickly one study or article can - sometimes - change our ways. We started placing infants on their backs rather than their stomachs when there were hints of correlation, but not proof of causation, with crib death. Pregnant women stopped having sushi, soft cheese, caffeine and even a sip of alcohol on the remote but striking possibility that a small amount could have consequences. BPA bottles disappeared in certain circles overnight when there was an unofficial link to cancer.

But other times, we just don't want to know. In that way the spanking conversation is like the vaccine "debate." In spite of no credible evidence of a link with autism, and many studies that tried and failed to find such a link, there are some minds that just won't change.

Your parents hit you, and you are okay? They probably smoked around you, too, and they didn't make you wear a seatbelt, either, but we know better now. Also, might I respectfully ask how you know that you're okay? Perhaps if your parents hadn't hit their kids, you wouldn't feel a need to hit your own?

It is the only thing that works when your children won't listen? Swedish children are not running amok in the streets, and spanking has been illegal there since 1979. Sweden was the first of 32 countries - including Costa Rica, Israel, Kenya and most of Europe - to approve such a law.

Some questions really don't have two sides. "Is it okay to do something to your child that would land you in jail if you did it to a stranger on the street?" is one of those. You can phrase it other ways too - like "Is it okay to hurt a child because it serves your immediate goal when science shows it can lead to long-term harm?" But there is still just one answer.

And yet, we keep seeing it presented as a disagreement.

"To Spank or Not to Spank" was the headline on both the CNN's report yesterday and the "Good Morning America" segment on Thursday about the latest Pediatrics study. The "Today" piece added the tagline: "Mommy Wars: Raging Parenting Debate," and a Babble blogger was found to represent each side.

But there aren't two sides. There is a preponderance of fact, and there are people who find it inconvenient to accept those facts.

Where, exactly is the debate?

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 4:29:37 AM PDT
Richard says:
How to Cope With a Difficult Child
From your Parenting of K-6 Children Guide

What to do if your child has a difficult temperament or a more serious condition that causes him to experience emotional flooding, poor impulse control, and other emotional and behavioral problems.

Difficulty Level: Hard Time Required: 24 hours, 7 days a week

Here's How:

Provide many opportunities for active, physical play.
Find time every day to listen to him talk about something that interests him. Don't jump in with your opinion; just listen!
Help him find a group where he can feel a sense of belonging (sports team, church group, etc.). Let him know he is an important part of your family and community.
Find an opportunity every day to tell him that you love him. Be a good role model in your patience, support and listening.
If you are married, present a united front in all of your interactions with the child.
Have just a few rules but enforce them consistently.
Avoid arguments and power struggles. The best way to defuse a power struggle is to use active listening.
Provide short time-outs for misbehavior, 10 minutes maximum.
Discontinue physical punishment to prevent or break a negative cycle -- that could lead to abuse, resentment and feelings of worthlessness.
Learn new parenting skills and try them out until you find what works for you. Join a parenting support group.
Establish regular routines and a clear structure for your days. Help him plan for good behavior by discussing upcoming activities, what he will encounter and how to behave.
For serious behavior problems, begin to seek help for your child at an early age. Diagnoses and interventions that work may take some time.
Contact a local mental health center or children's hospital for a full assessment of your child, then follow up on their recommendations for therapy, medication, and support for you.
Keep a folder with all of your child's assessment reports, recommendations, appointments and important papers. Collect helpful resources related to his condition and keep them in your folder.

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 8:31:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 4:14:50 PM PDT
Richard says:

Norman Doidge on the brain and neuroplasticity

Why is this crucial information? Life events that happen repeatedly actually change the physical anatomy of the brain. For example, toddlers that are spanked several times a week, form indelible memories of those events as permanent records. The emotions and thoughts surrounding these spankings are permanently recorded. Fear and anxiety are unhealthy emotions for children and are especially bad because they are so unnecessary.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 6:32:57 PM PDT
Paul J Ok says:
Richard I think my prayers for you might be helping.
I too love the way Doidge uses God to explain neuroplasticity as well.
How God used His brain to think creation into existence - just awesome.
Everyone including Helen Keller has always known about neuroplasticity and how it takes 3 weeks to make something a habit.
Now some geeks will get paid for naming something that has always been around I guess.

Fascinating how not repetition but just one memorable spanking to my boy and now I have not had to resort to spanking any of my children for over 2 years.

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 1:41:20 AM PDT
Richard says:
I too love the way Doidge uses God to explain neuroplasticity as well.

I will have to rewind the tape and listen for that comment. Not that I doubt you, I would be looking for context. Many atheist scientists, Albert Einstein, notably use the word god in a metaphorical sense and do not mean the personal god of the bible. Many believers say god is behind evolution and I have few problems with this if they get the facts straight and understand how it works. Such believers are way ahead of the bible literalists who insist the earth is about 6,000 years old and humans walked the earth with dinosaurs.

When I originally posted the Doidge information it was to a different interview which was much shorter. I revised the post to point to an hour long interview. Is this the video you are referring to?

The concept of neuroplasticity is very recent; don't confuse it with older philosophical ideas that seem to describe this phenomenon. The science is going to radically change our lives and it is well to understand there are drawbacks. While the brain is plastic, it also has the quality of vigorously retaining a mindset against changes. This can make unwary people rigid and inflexible and provides the basis of what we call bigotry. Defined as the inability to accept new information that conflicts with our mindset.

The paranormal phenomenon of psychokinesis has been explored for decades and roundly debunked. Now we understand it actually works when the object being changed is our own mind/brain. Astonishing!

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 11:13:41 AM PDT
Richard says:

A short (60 second) but extremely effective introduction to neuroplasticity.

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 11:33:06 AM PDT
Deeone says:
Neuroplasticity is a dirty word
The latest refrain in popular science is that `your brain is plastic', that experience has the potential to `rewire' your brain, and that many previous mysteries in cognitive can be explained by `neuroplasticity'. What they don't tell you is that these phrases are virtually meaningless.

Neuroplasticity sounds very technical, but there is no accepted scientific definition for the term and, in its broad sense, it means nothing more than `something in the brain has changed'. As your brain is always changing the term is empty on its own.

This is from the introduction to the influential scientific book Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity:

Given the central important of neuroplasticity, an outsider would be forgiven for assuming that it was a well defined and that a basic and universal framework served to direct current and future hypotheses and experimentation. Sadly, however, this is not the case. While many neuroscientists use the word neuroplasticity as an umbrella term it means different things to different researchers in different subfields... In brief, a mutually agreed upon framework does not appear to exist.

It's currently popular to solemnly declare that a particular experience must be taken seriously because it `rewires the brain' despite the fact that everything we experience `rewires the brain'.

It's like a reporter from a crime scene saying there was `movement' during the incident. We have learnt nothing we didn't already know.

Neuroplasticity is common in popular culture at this point in time because mentioning the brain makes a claim about human nature seem more scientific, even if it is irrelevant (a tendency called `neuroessentialism`).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 12:53:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2012 8:30:55 AM PDT
Richard says:
This is from the introduction to the influential scientific book Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity:

Who says this book is "influential" ? This is a survey of the science that existed in 2001. Way out of date for this fast moving field. As a survey, the editor will try to provide balance by offering pro and con arguments. Like evolution, spanking, and climate change, there appears to be broad consensus that neuroplasticity is a stunning discovery that has been validated by multiple researchers.

Apparently you cherry picked the contents of this book and found one article by one disenchanted dissenter. Isn't that true? Please report how many articles were positive.

Please provide a link to anything you cite as substantiation for your points. The Amazon page for this book does not list any reader comments whatsoever. None.

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 8:19:51 AM PDT
Deeone says:
My Mum used to cut chicken, chop eggs and spread mayo
on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach,
but we didn't seem to get food poisoning.

Our school sandwiches were wrapped in wax paper in a brown paper bag,
not in ice pack coolers, but I can't remember getting e.Coli.

Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake
instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), no beach closures then.

We all took PE ... and risked permanent injury
with a pair of Dunlop sandshoes instead of having cross-training
athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors.

I can't recall any injuries but they must have happened because
they tell us how much safer we are now.

We all said prayers in school and sang the national anthem,
and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention.

I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something
before I was allowed to be proud of myself.

I just can't recall how bored we were without computers,
Play Station, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital TV cable stations.

Oh yeah ...
and where was the Benadryl and sterilisation kit
when I got that bee sting?
I could have been killed!

We played "King of the Hill" on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites
and when we got hurt, Mum pulled out the 48 cent bottle of mercurochrome
(kids liked it better because it didn't sting like iodine did)
and then we got our butt spanked.

Now it's a trip to the emergency room,
followed by a 10 day dose of a $49 bottle of antibiotics
and then Mum calls the Attorney to sue the contractor for leaving
a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.

To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told
that they were from a dysfunctional family.

How could we possibly have known that?

We never needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes.

We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we
didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac!

How did we ever survive?


Pass this to someone and remember that life's most
simple pleasures are very often the best.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 9:55:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 10:05:18 AM PDT
kiwani says:

NONE of these things have to do with spanking/disciplining children as we're speaking of... but with progression of a society...

And nobody says any parent/family cannot raise their families in this fashion currently if they choose to do so...
--they still sell mercurochrome, I believe...and parents can still find/buy it, if they choose to
--they still sell paper lunch bags & wax paper...and parents can buy it, if they choose to
--nobody says kids have to have Nike or other designer shoes... parents can buy other kinds, if they choose to
--might have been luck on the e.coli/& food poisoning, but as long as it got wiped off regularly...parents can still use/buy rags to clean the counter, if they choose to

--I am 55yrs old, and they did not have prayers in any school I attended, but we did say Pledge of Allegiance every day, and when I taught in a K-class this past semester, they still opened the class with the Pledge just like when I went to school... [and parents can still take their children to Sunday School for prayers, if they choose to], and as far as I know, they still have after-school detention...

[[I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself. ]]
--I do agree with this statement [in part], but I would add that people, in general, need to have a good feeling about themselves in order to accomplish something to be proud of... and parents can learn better how to separate the two kinds of statements ["I love you-just because"; & "Wow-what a great job you did vacuuming the carpet today!"] when praising their children...

[[I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, Play Station, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital TV cable stations.]]
--I agree partially with your statement here, too--that parents can better set limits on times kids spend on these devices [& hold to it], then shoo them outside for regular times of large-muscle physical activity, fresh air, & socialization with friends-times...

[*FYI/Parenting Tip: If I had kids in this age-frame, I would have them do the fresh-air/outside-friend-time FIRST, then have the computer/Play Station time after dinner when they come in(& AFTER homework is done), then kids would have an incentive to come in & not be roaming out late at night...[and then, if that commercial came on that says: "It's 11:00, Do you know where your children are?" -parents can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that they DO know where they are].

Another Parent TIP: appropriate & approx. BEDTIMES for kids [on school days] should be:
Pre-school through 3rd grade: NOT later than 8:00pm
4th grade: 8:30pm
5th-6th grade: 9-9:30pm
7th-8th grade: 9:30-10:30pm
9th-10th grade: 10-11:00pm
11-12th grade: their own discretion [but would set limit-not later than(pick/even negotiate a certain time)]

--on Weekends: add 1/2 hour to times (except preschool/K/1st-2nd grades) - [as well as on good behavior]
--on Holidays/Special days: add between 1/2hr-45min-1hr [depending on situation (as well as on good behavior)]
--In SUMMER: Can add 30min-to-1.5hrs (but kids still need a certain #hrs sleep daily/regardless of school) {then, parents need to walk the time back gradually as school-time approaches so they're back to age-appropriate times BEFORE! school starts}
--everytime you are able to add time for wknds/holidays/spec.days -it is contingent upon good behavior.
--when they get to the next level to increase bedtimes, it is contingent upon good behavior (& homework done)
--give recognition that they are growing up, and can increase the limits because the are behaving responsibily...
--give appreciation that they are behaving responsibility...

--as kids get older, they continually want to test limits & boundaries of a parent's authority--such as at bedtimes [or doing chores], so instead of having battles about these things with your kids, put it onto them to decide and then hold then to their decision --such as:
parent says it's bedtime [time to do chores], then kid says: Can I stay up (to finish show/finish game, etc), or I'll do it in a minute.....
then parent asks "what time/how long?"
(kid states time)...if parent thinks this is acceptable & agrees, then hold kid to stated time (even if show not done- -this will help them to consider better, more accurate estimates of the time they need for the next time)...

p.s. if there is something special, or of 'extreme importantance' to child, I'd be somewhat more flexible in this--& maybe give the 5-10min longer, so perhaps they won't lose data if on computer/or game/or miss end of important show...

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 10:09:27 AM PDT
Deeone says:
This was put on here as something a little humorous, light-hearted, and actually just a fun item. NOT something that needed dissected bit by bit. Boy, no wonder you sound so bitter, miserable, controlling and plain mean and along with the "R" person who constantly posts of how things SHOULD BE NOW! Learn to grin and bear it (not necessary to do it aloud or in print). Learn to laugh as this moment could be your last one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:39:00 AM PDT
Deeone says:
Ps...people are too lazy, greedy, self-absorbed, derpessed, highly anguished or just plain not able to deal with kids now-a-days. Too
many of the mamas are too young and have babies with no daddies.

Statistics in my neighborhood just by observering the "family members" at night would show you the "family time" is falling by the wayside.

Kids getting shot in the playground (3 under 25 and one 17 yo walked up to two brothers 20 and two of the four fired (one was the 17yo) on the one boy and killed him as over 100 people saw it happen but the chant from them was "we don't talk to no cops". Thus two killers still on the run this week. Some people are slowing giving up info without getting caught being a snitch.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:45:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 10:50:07 AM PDT
kiwani says:

People can respond however they choose. It is not my post that has any bitter, miserable, or controlling or mean statements...
>> Rather, it is your posts that reflect those sentiments [esp. your earlier posts], but your most recent post was a lament of: "oh-how much things were better-way back when-and when parents controlled & disciplined & raised their children better than they do nowadays"... --I have received those type of posts in my emails before, many times---I know what they're about, what they are saying, and what their meaning is...

If you think what I wrote was mean, bitter, controlling, etc., then you do not have very good reading comprehension, or an ability to interpret what people mean...

I even agreed with a couple of the statements [but just added some qualifications to those two]... I am merely pointing out that much of what you are lamenting has to do with a parent's choice & the decisions they make in raising their children... if parents are uneducated, or make poor choices, or give in to peer pressure, or society's pressure, then they cannot put that responsibility onto anyone but themselves....

~of course, the answer to that is for parent's to get parenting education to better learn how to raise their kids more effectively...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:48:41 AM PDT
kiwani says:
if this is so/of how you feel, --then you should not have found any issues or problems with my first post.

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 12:38:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 12:47:08 PM PDT
Richard says:
Campaign for a CRC Complaints Mechanism
Español / français / ру́сский язы́к

Menu: What is it / Why such a mechanism / How would this be done? / Latest News / Challenges and objections: Q & A / Supporters / what can you do / links & further reading / petition / Lobby your government

A group of agencies are campaigning for the United Nations to establish a communications/complaints mechanism to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Such a procedure would provide a mechanism that would ensure the availability of legal remedies for children at the international level.

What is it?

A complaints or communications procedure allows individuals, groups or their representatives who claim that their rights have been violated by a State that is a party to a convention or covenant to bring a complaint before the relevant committee, provided that the State has recognised the competence of the committee to receive such complaints.

Why such a mechanism?

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the only international human rights treaty with a mandatory reporting procedure which does not have, in addition, an existing or draft communications procedure. This is a serious matter of discrimination against children. [See existing complaints mechanisms]

While children and their representatives can use the mechanisms established under other international instruments to pursue many of their rights, those instruments do not cover, separately or together, the full range and detail of rights in the CRC.

Furthermore, communications or complaints made on behalf of children to the other bodies will not be considered by a Committee with special expertise on children's rights. Similar persuasive arguments were made for the adoption of the communications' mechanisms under CEDAW and under the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Parenting forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  553
Initial post:  Jun 27, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 16, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions